Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
- Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
Still sounds like deuterons are being talked into fusing, rather than acted on in some way!!
- Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
This does smack of the classic cold fusion mantra D+D=He4 and no radiation. Well if there is no radiation then where's the energy out? IR? RF? UV? I assume there is energy out and they mention low energy reactions. Inquiring minds want to know, but more importantly, inquiring eyes want to see it happen in some sort of wheelwork form.
As always, lots of theories with little to show their efficacy.
I'll stick with my simplistic PE exchange philosophy, composite neutron as a special case proton-electron union found only in and acting as the binder of nuclear atoms.
For right now, I have to accept the classic physics observational fusion methodology as it is fully observed and repeatable. Unfortunately, it forces me to conclude that fusion is stellar mass sized affair for net autorun operation with loads of nasty radiation as a resultant of that operation.
Richard Hull
As always, lots of theories with little to show their efficacy.
I'll stick with my simplistic PE exchange philosophy, composite neutron as a special case proton-electron union found only in and acting as the binder of nuclear atoms.
For right now, I have to accept the classic physics observational fusion methodology as it is fully observed and repeatable. Unfortunately, it forces me to conclude that fusion is stellar mass sized affair for net autorun operation with loads of nasty radiation as a resultant of that operation.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
Richard, Elsewhere he states 'no particle radiation', so, presumably energy out is gamma rays/x-rays/other photons.
Anything involving a crystal lattice sounds like cold fusion.
He does mention an interesting concept about mass being a fifth dimension, though.
Anything involving a crystal lattice sounds like cold fusion.
He does mention an interesting concept about mass being a fifth dimension, though.
-
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:24 pm
- Real name:
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
Strikes me as cold fusion as well.
However, another interesting implication caught my attention. This paper seems to suggest that deuterium in a metallic state would spontaneously fuse at some rate.
Given that there are several research groups attempting to study the metallic properties of hydrogen, and that many of those are using deuterium in their tests, we should have conclusive proof one way or the other before too long if it doesn't exist already.
-Chris
However, another interesting implication caught my attention. This paper seems to suggest that deuterium in a metallic state would spontaneously fuse at some rate.
Given that there are several research groups attempting to study the metallic properties of hydrogen, and that many of those are using deuterium in their tests, we should have conclusive proof one way or the other before too long if it doesn't exist already.
-Chris
-
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 3:50 am
- Real name: Edward Miller
- Contact:
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
Deuterium in any state will spontaneously fuse. Just not enough to be interesting. Also there will be cosmic muons that catalyze some fusion reactions. I don't think anyone has done fusion with liquid metal deuterium although LLNL had a project that was getting incredibly high densities. https://www.llnl.gov/str/Nellis.html
- Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
Edward Miller wrote:
> Deuterium in any state will spontaneously fuse.
Only philosophically speaking. If the 'rate' of fusion in a bottle of D at room temp is once per 100 trillion years then it is truly a 'theoretical' rate as one single event is unlikely to be seen in the lifetime of the universe, even though a theoretical 'rate' can be described. As you say, cosmic-induced nuclear transformations are far far more likely.
> Deuterium in any state will spontaneously fuse.
Only philosophically speaking. If the 'rate' of fusion in a bottle of D at room temp is once per 100 trillion years then it is truly a 'theoretical' rate as one single event is unlikely to be seen in the lifetime of the universe, even though a theoretical 'rate' can be described. As you say, cosmic-induced nuclear transformations are far far more likely.
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
Has anyone ever considered to what extent muons play a part in fusion in the sun?...
Just a thought.....
Just a thought.....
-
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
- Real name:
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
Without actually having any details on muons in the Sun, I suspect that they are extreamly rare in the core. Cosmic rays would not penitrate so deeply into the Sun, and the Sun's core is at ~ 15,000,000 degrees C. (~1400 electron volts) so the numbers of particals in the thremalized tail that reach ~ 40,000,000 electron volts (what is needed to create a muon (?) ) would be extreamly rare. The freshly created fusion products in the core would briefly have a few million electron volts of kinetic energy but they would very quickly distribute that energy to the very dense background plasma within the core- with it's ~ 1400 eV average temperature. Also, I don't know if the Muon would help with the initial step of P-P fusion, like it is claimed to help the strong force fusions of heavier isotopes.
I supose a muon created near the Solar surface might promote a rare fusion in the low densitiy gasses (plasma) present in that area of the Sun, at least if some deuterium is present.
Dan Tibbets
I supose a muon created near the Solar surface might promote a rare fusion in the low densitiy gasses (plasma) present in that area of the Sun, at least if some deuterium is present.
Dan Tibbets
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
It was just a hought Dan. I assumed cosmic rays were produced at the centre of the sun, presumably as an indirect fusion by-product, due to the huge energy levels present there. I'll have to read up on cosmic rays. Muons could certainly be of relevance to this thread, though, as a possible catalyst, but then that wouldn't make what is being discussed in this thread unique.
- Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
No one on earth knows the precise methodology by which cosmic rays are produced or more importantly accelerated to the incomprehensible energies that have been observed. (one hundred quintillion electron volts on a few recorded particles...100 exavolts)
Naturally, lots and lots of theories abound from super-nova remenants to billions of field interactions over eons of time cruising through space to active galactic cores.
The average energy of a cosmic ray is on the order of a billion electron volts. As virtually all cosmics are normal matter particles, (nuclei), "ray" is somewhat of a misnomer in the purest sense, but its long term use remains. One is not normally in the habit of calling a speeding nickel or thulium nucleus a ray.
Amazingly there are virtually no high energy gammas seen in cosmic rays compared to the energies of real matter particles intercepted. The bulk of the matter particles are proton and helium nuclei. Muons are not found in cosmic rays, but are created by them crashing into atmospheric nuclei. Natural subatomic spew (muons, pions, etc.) are solely created by cosmics blasting apart atmospheric atoms. Subatomics don't cruise through space....too cold for 'em and they are not wanted in our current day universe.
Miliken argued for years that cosmics were mostly gamma rays until he was forced to accept overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even the greats can be dead wrong.
Modern day x-ray telescopes have seen x-ray, (gamma ray), energies of a few trillion ev, but as noted, gamma rays of any higher energies than the 2.2mev gamma originating due to solar processes are rare events. Again, our atmosphere forces almost all high energy gammas are cosmic rays to pair produce or by other means of gamma matter interactions to slow down so that mev cosmics at the ground are just not effectively seen. As might be expected a rare ground based cosmic gamma detection is possible.
Richard Hull
Naturally, lots and lots of theories abound from super-nova remenants to billions of field interactions over eons of time cruising through space to active galactic cores.
The average energy of a cosmic ray is on the order of a billion electron volts. As virtually all cosmics are normal matter particles, (nuclei), "ray" is somewhat of a misnomer in the purest sense, but its long term use remains. One is not normally in the habit of calling a speeding nickel or thulium nucleus a ray.
Amazingly there are virtually no high energy gammas seen in cosmic rays compared to the energies of real matter particles intercepted. The bulk of the matter particles are proton and helium nuclei. Muons are not found in cosmic rays, but are created by them crashing into atmospheric nuclei. Natural subatomic spew (muons, pions, etc.) are solely created by cosmics blasting apart atmospheric atoms. Subatomics don't cruise through space....too cold for 'em and they are not wanted in our current day universe.
Miliken argued for years that cosmics were mostly gamma rays until he was forced to accept overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even the greats can be dead wrong.
Modern day x-ray telescopes have seen x-ray, (gamma ray), energies of a few trillion ev, but as noted, gamma rays of any higher energies than the 2.2mev gamma originating due to solar processes are rare events. Again, our atmosphere forces almost all high energy gammas are cosmic rays to pair produce or by other means of gamma matter interactions to slow down so that mev cosmics at the ground are just not effectively seen. As might be expected a rare ground based cosmic gamma detection is possible.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
Richard, I appreciate that muons are not found in cosmic rays, only created by them, as you say.
You also say that no-one knows the true origin of cosmic rays.
I was merely suggesting that it may be possible that muons 'may' be produced by cosmic rays within the sun.
I'm expecting to be 'proved wrong' on this matter, however, as you say, no-one knows the true origin of cosmic rays. I also suspect it would be difficult to detect muons within the sun. I was merely speculating that muons could possibly play a part in fusion within the sun.
Maybe muons are the 'lucky donkey' required for 'over unity'?.....
You also say that no-one knows the true origin of cosmic rays.
I was merely suggesting that it may be possible that muons 'may' be produced by cosmic rays within the sun.
I'm expecting to be 'proved wrong' on this matter, however, as you say, no-one knows the true origin of cosmic rays. I also suspect it would be difficult to detect muons within the sun. I was merely speculating that muons could possibly play a part in fusion within the sun.
Maybe muons are the 'lucky donkey' required for 'over unity'?.....
- Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
We have been over muon catalyized fusion to distraction! It is perhaps a close brother to the forlorn hope of P-B11 fusion in these forums.
As earth based muons demand a minimum of 50mev to be produced, or more likely 100mev to be produced readily, any fusion efforts involving them by man would require extreme input energy expenditures.
Finally, there are no indications of any feasibility of this idea as a net power producing system. Certainly, no one here will ever investigate it.
Richard Hull
As earth based muons demand a minimum of 50mev to be produced, or more likely 100mev to be produced readily, any fusion efforts involving them by man would require extreme input energy expenditures.
Finally, there are no indications of any feasibility of this idea as a net power producing system. Certainly, no one here will ever investigate it.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
I appreciate that, Richard, but one muon can catalyze tens of thousands of fusion events, so it would be exothermic overall.
-
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 3:50 am
- Real name: Edward Miller
- Contact:
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
Muons can't catalyze thousands of reactions because their lives are so brief they can only get into a hundred or so, and even then they sometimes stick to the molecule instead of catalyzing more and more reactions.
I agree with Richard, there is not currently a practicable path to energy generation via muons. For the most part they're a distraction. I find it fascinating that they show that fusion can be done by just decreasing the intranuclear distance and without the ridiculous temperatures required by ion collision fusion.
I agree with Richard, there is not currently a practicable path to energy generation via muons. For the most part they're a distraction. I find it fascinating that they show that fusion can be done by just decreasing the intranuclear distance and without the ridiculous temperatures required by ion collision fusion.
- Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
Depends on your definition of 'temperature', I guess.
How fast are those deuterons and tritons spinning around the muon - even though that 'muon atom' itself is at a low temp? As we well-know in IEC, it's nuclear speed that counts, not 'temperature' which is a bulk property and therefore I suggest it doesn't describe beam-target or muon-type fusion
How fast are those deuterons and tritons spinning around the muon - even though that 'muon atom' itself is at a low temp? As we well-know in IEC, it's nuclear speed that counts, not 'temperature' which is a bulk property and therefore I suggest it doesn't describe beam-target or muon-type fusion
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
Edward, I'm not disagreeing with you in principle.
The number of fusion events a single muon can catalyze is obviously debatable.
I was merely suggesting that no-one can say definitively that they don't play some part in fusion in the sun.
While I'm not saying no fusion would occur without muons, We have no way of proving that they don't play a part in some of the fusion that occurs.
It is, after all, accepted that the presence of muons will increase the rate of fusion. (increase the fusion cross section)
The number of fusion events a single muon can catalyze is obviously debatable.
I was merely suggesting that no-one can say definitively that they don't play some part in fusion in the sun.
While I'm not saying no fusion would occur without muons, We have no way of proving that they don't play a part in some of the fusion that occurs.
It is, after all, accepted that the presence of muons will increase the rate of fusion. (increase the fusion cross section)
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
Chris, surely a 'muon atom' has a much greater fusion cross section in any scenario?
- Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
I've no idea what you're talking about. How does that relate to muon fusion? The muon acts as the 'nucleus' to two fusible nucleii, thus keeps them hovering around real-close-like in a 'quantum space', whereas 'fusion cross-section' relates to two fast-moving fusible nucleii on a beam-collision trajectory.
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
OL, Chris.....In layman's terms, muons act as catatysts, thereby effectively increasing the fusion cross section, or, at least, they 'increase the probability' of a 'fusion event' occuring.
- Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
Ash Small wrote:
> OL, Chris.....In layman's terms, muons act as catatysts, thereby effectively increasing the fusion cross section, or, at least, they 'increase the probability' of a 'fusion event' occuring.
Give it me in specialist's terms as best you can, as I am unclear what level of understanding of muon catalysed fusion you have and this makes the discussion difficult to know where to begin it. What do *you* mean by 'fusion cross-section' in respect of a muon-atom, and if the probability of fusion is increased, with respect to the probability of -what- is it increased?
> OL, Chris.....In layman's terms, muons act as catatysts, thereby effectively increasing the fusion cross section, or, at least, they 'increase the probability' of a 'fusion event' occuring.
Give it me in specialist's terms as best you can, as I am unclear what level of understanding of muon catalysed fusion you have and this makes the discussion difficult to know where to begin it. What do *you* mean by 'fusion cross-section' in respect of a muon-atom, and if the probability of fusion is increased, with respect to the probability of -what- is it increased?
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
Let me sleep on it, Chris, and I'll do my best to answer your question tomorrow......
At the end of the day, I'm but a mere metal worker.....
At the end of the day, I'm but a mere metal worker.....
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
Chris,
'the concept of a cross section is used to express the likelihood of interaction between particles.'
If something increases the likelihood of fusion occuring, it increases the fusion cross section.
This is my understanding, it is also 'backed up' by wikipedia.
'the concept of a cross section is used to express the likelihood of interaction between particles.'
If something increases the likelihood of fusion occuring, it increases the fusion cross section.
This is my understanding, it is also 'backed up' by wikipedia.
- Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
Not really. Cross-section only applies in respect of a probability of interaction where you have a populated medium in which free particles are moving as an 'emsemble' system. What is the density of orbiting deuterons in a muon-atom? It doesn't make sense in that context.
Fusion occurs in muon atoms due to a confined quantised space such that the wave function of those orbiting deuterons/tritons causes them to, potentially, 'occupy the same space' and thus fuse. This is opposed to fusion of free particles in motion [thermal or individually accelerated] in which there is a quantum probability that they actually exist at some distributed region of space (according to their relative de Broglie wavelength) such that they might spontaneously find themselves 'in the same region of space' and thus fuse.
Whether you wish to assign 'nominal' velocities and densities of the orbiting deuterons/tritons, so as to force fit the situation to match the free nucleii scenario, is your choice but I think it'll end up in confusion and tears if you try to make predictions with that notion.
Fusion occurs in muon atoms due to a confined quantised space such that the wave function of those orbiting deuterons/tritons causes them to, potentially, 'occupy the same space' and thus fuse. This is opposed to fusion of free particles in motion [thermal or individually accelerated] in which there is a quantum probability that they actually exist at some distributed region of space (according to their relative de Broglie wavelength) such that they might spontaneously find themselves 'in the same region of space' and thus fuse.
Whether you wish to assign 'nominal' velocities and densities of the orbiting deuterons/tritons, so as to force fit the situation to match the free nucleii scenario, is your choice but I think it'll end up in confusion and tears if you try to make predictions with that notion.
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
You are correct in as much as muon catalised fusion experiments use liquid D and T, so the nuclei are closer together, but gravity will achieve a similar result in the sun.
All I'm saying is 'How do we know there aren't any muons in the sun?'
All I'm saying is 'How do we know there aren't any muons in the sun?'
- Chris Bradley
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 am
- Real name:
Re: Interesting Alternate Fusion Concept
Ash Small wrote:
> All I'm saying is 'How do we know there aren't any muons in the sun?'
Because the Sun has too much plasma mass for heavy charged particles like muons, or fast cosmic protons that tend to form them, for it to be penetrated, and that the most energetic reaction (in our p-p burning Sun) is a 5MeV gamma from the D+p reaction (that almost immediately follows a successful pp fusion) yet over 100MeV is needed to form a muon, hence there are no reactions known of that have sufficient energy to form muons in the Sun.
> All I'm saying is 'How do we know there aren't any muons in the sun?'
Because the Sun has too much plasma mass for heavy charged particles like muons, or fast cosmic protons that tend to form them, for it to be penetrated, and that the most energetic reaction (in our p-p burning Sun) is a 5MeV gamma from the D+p reaction (that almost immediately follows a successful pp fusion) yet over 100MeV is needed to form a muon, hence there are no reactions known of that have sufficient energy to form muons in the Sun.