Muon catalyzed fusion

29 posts / 0 new
Last post
jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 111
Muon catalyzed fusion

Muon-catalyzed fusion is a little-known type of cold fusion. A muon is like an electron, only much more massive. So hydrogen atoms with muons replacing their electrons, are much smaller than regular atoms. Thus, the nuclei can come closer together than in normal hydrogen, and fusion can occur at manageable temperatures.

In 1986, Dr. Steven Jones published a landmark paper: "Observation of unexpected density effects in muon-catalyzed d-t fusion" (Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 588–591). In this paper, Jones described an experiment in which he set a world's record for efficiency of the reaction, 2600 MeV per muon. According to Wikipedia, that world record has never since been surpassed. Jones also published his work in an article simply called "Cold Nuclear Fusion" in the July 1987 issue of Scientific American.

Unfortunately, the utility of the reaction was limited by the "alpha sticking" problem. Another unrelated cold fusion technology was announced to great media fanfare by Pons & Fleischmann in 1989, and Dr. Jones' pioneering work in muon catalyzed fusion seems to have been lost in the shuffle. However: this 2011 patent, by Joseph M Jacobson of MIT's media lab, suggests that the alpha sticking problem for MCF can be managed by adding photons to the reaction.

http://www.google.com/patents/US20080008286

Abstract
Systems and methods are described for carrying out fusion reactions by changing either the Coulombic energy barrier or the reaction cross section or both. Such systems and methods are useful for creating fusion reactions which exceed energy breakeven (Q>1) and which have a relatively low cost and compact size.

[….]

Here we disclose means for reducing the sticking probability of said Muon to said fusion product by means of incident x-ray photons of energy tuned to (or photons which have energies which are integer fractions of) the Muon-fusion product bond energy.
 

This raises the possibility that cold fusion is now a fully operational technology. Indeed, considering that such discoveries (or other related discoveries) may be protected as national security secrets or trade secrets for long periods of time, we cannot rule out that such technology might have been available as early as 2001.

The patent doesn't discuss any experimental verification of the proposed technology. However, I'd like to suggest that perhaps it was demonstrated at the WTC towers on 9/11/2001. The fact that the towers were destroyed has now been established in a number of papers published in peer-reviewed journals, so I believe it should be treated as an established fact, rather than a matter for the "controversial topics" forum. See http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2013EastmanColeVol37Apr.pdf.

The possibility that fission-free fusion may have played a role at the WTC has been discussed recently at several websites, including http://www.911u.org, http://www.veteranstoday.com, and http://jprager.wix.com/jpragersbooks. In my view, unfortunately, none of these resources represents a complete scientific analysis, although all appear to be written with good intentions, and all are well worth reading.

Evidence of fusion at the WTC includes: Tritium levels elevated 50x over baseline in WTC6 basement water samples; unusually high levels of barium & strontium; high prevalence of sub-2.5 micron particles in the dust, far above what could've happened from any mechanical crushing process or conventional combustion; tens of thousands of tons of iron melted into  microspheres of dust;  video showing free-standing solid steel core columns of the WTC crumbling into dust in midair; excess heat from the debris pile; and medical syndromes in first responders typical of high radiation exposure.

In what I believe may be more than a coincidence,  Dr. Steven Jones has also emerged since 2005 as a leading proponent of the theory that the WTC towers were destroyed by thermite. Jones published a well-known paper with Niels Harrit and others, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" (The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31). However, in an email to Mark Hightower & others dated 7/26/2011,  Harrit estimated that it would take 29,000 tons of thermite per tower, to account for the amount of iron spheres in the dust.  It seems impossible to imagine any way to bring that much thermite into downtown Manhattan and into the WTC towers, without anyone noticing.

If this turns out to be correct, I don't know whether to feel elated, or outraged. On the one hand, this means we have the technology to solve both Peak Oil and Global Warming. This cold fusion technology can be expected to be far cleaner than fission technologies in terms of the long-term radioactivity of the reaction products.

On the other hand: 9/11… need I say more?

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
Nice one Jerry.

Well done Jerry. You have introduced information that I was unaware of. We have a research establishment, Star Scientific in Australia that is persuing Muon Catalysed fusion. I mentioned them in Dispatches from Daejeong in October of 12.

I understand you to be saying that the probability of Muons sticking to protons increases in the presence of hi-energy photons. (X-rays)? But how do they generate a supply of Muons? That has always been the rub.

Tritium is always a dead give-away. It has a half-life of 27 years, so if you find it, it is newly minted.

Very interesting indeed.

Keep us posted.

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2379
How do you generate the X-rays?

X-rays require quite a bit of energy to generate... so in general, I question the idea that one could create a self-sustaining, net positive energy device, even if solving for the "sticking" problem,  given what is already known about Muon-catalyzed fusion;

Current techniques for creating large numbers of muons require large amounts of energy, larger than the amounts produced by the catalyzed nuclear fusion reactions. This prevents it from becoming a practical power source. Moreover, each muon has about a 1% chance of "sticking" to the alpha particle produced by the nuclear fusion of a deuterium with a tritium, removing the "stuck" muon from the catalytic cycle, meaning that each muon can only catalyze at most a few hundred deuterium tritium nuclear fusion reactions. So, these two factors, of muons being too expensive to make and then sticking too easily to alpha particles, limit muon-catalyzed fusion to a laboratory curiosity. To create useful room-temperature muon-catalyzed fusion reactors we would need to discover a cheaper, more efficient muon source and/or encourage each individual muon to catalyze many more fusion reactions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

Finally, assuming that you did have a way to create a functioning Muon-catalyzed fusion cell that is constantly bathed in the appropriate frequency of X-rays... how in the world would one employ (many?) such devices to slice through all of the main columns in the twin towers?  Use of (nano)thermite seems easy by comparison. 

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
Fukushima decontamination breakthrough.

While we are on a roll I would like to bring to your attention the latest post at Cold Fusion Now where they are using nano-silver to achieve significant decreases in radioactivity. No theory exists, that I know of, to account for the transmutations.

I did notice hoever that Tungsten was transformed into Platinium which might give you a bit of a flutter.

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
The Tritium fingerprint.

Jim, neither airplanes or thermite produce tritium. If their measurment of tritium was accurate, it was nuclear.

(Where is Dogs when you need him?)

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2379
Chalk up another application for Silver! Nuclear waste decon

As Homer Simpson would say;  "Silver, is there anything it can't do?"

PS.  I think in the original the word Silver was replaced with "Donuts".

  

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2379
This is not my first rodeo.....

I cut my teeth as a trace analytical chemist on a search for a rogue source of 210Po....

How's about the exit signs?

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-tritium.html

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
Thanks Jim

Thanks Jim. That could have been the source. It is good to clear that up.

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 111
Not the exit signs

Hi Jim,

The tritium at the WTC is discussed in this report. It's a long and difficult read. Skipping to the conclusion, it looks to me like they haven't got any adequate explanation for the tritium. They consider & reject the possibility that exit signs could be the source.

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/799642-XVivsq/native/799642.pdf

"We were informed by PANYNJ authorities that there were no tritium signs at [the]WTC, only photoluminescent ones (Lombardi, 2001). This is entirely consistent with [our] observations." (p. 8)

Also note that I listed seven lines of evidence indicating fusion at the WTC, tritium is only one of them. On the other hand, we know there was no fission: typical fission products were absent.

 

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2379
The Tritium rabbit hole...

Between Tritium that was in the aircraft exit signs, and other sources like watches and gunsights.. one could argue endlessly about whether there was "enough" to account for the high water readings.  Here is one discussion of these points that I found;

http://www.nucleardemolition.com/tritium.html

To me, Occum's razor says that there is Tritium around from various sources... and that this would be the simplest explanation.  To argue that this Tritium somehow points to Muon catalyzed fusion occuring is really a huge stretch.  

 

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 111
Where there's a hole, there's a rabbit...

If you read to the end of Jim's link, it reaches the same conclusion that I do, that the tritium is evidence of a fusion reaction.

Jim seems to have made up his mind.  But if anyone else is keeping score, please note that he's treating MCF as if it's a "rabbit hole" when it's a patented MIT technology. And he's ignoring the other six lines of evidence I gave, indicating the presence of fusion at the WTC on 9/11.

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
Naive me.

(T)he correct implication of the paper therefore is that a third unknown source supplied the 

high levels of tritium activity detected in the basement of WTC 6 some 10 days later. If it 

was not another contaminant from some other tritiated source, it can only have occurred 

by in situ tritiation of water by neutron bombardment.

 

This is the summarising conclusion of the report that James refers to.

The incredible integrating machine, my  brain, is beginning to think that PeakProsperity is becoming one of the influential nodes on the web and is attracting some major players.

I would like to think that we are all sweetness and light. But that would be naive.

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 111
Major players?

Not sure if you mean me, Arthur, but if so I appreciate the complement.

But: this is the most influential site I know of, where I can post a message such as this and not get moderated into silence.

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
Major Players.

Freedom of speach:

The ability to say what you like,where you like, to whom you like, provided nobody hears you.

 

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2379
Cage Match (debate)

I say that we put the top Nanothermite theorist in a debate cage with Jerryr, representing the fusion crowd, and whoever cries uncle first is the loser!  

But seriously... I have not spent enough time doing due diligence on the WTC to have settled opinion on any of this... but I will say that the nanothermite theory seems infinitely more plausible to me than this MCF idea.  The reason I have not done the due diligence is I just don't know why I should care so much.  I already know where I stand in the eyes of my Gov't... they will crush me if I get in the way.  Look at the recent hotel stay they gave Adam Kokesh in response to his protestations ... how nice.  I spend my own time and effort figuring out how to become more resilient, mostly in the economic sense, in the face of increasing tyranny.  My path would not change if I felt 100% sure that WTC was taken down by this or that, or just by rogue forces in the shadow Gov't that guided it and let it happen (the planes) using the Saudi's as patsies.  I don't know the answer, and I really don't care enough to spend the time to dig into it.     

I jumped into this thread because I am generally interested in this energy stuff.  I am leery of LENR as it seems to attract all nature of scam artists.  If there really is something there to be discovered... there are plenty of very, very smart University-based researchers that will figure it out without playing the "black box energy device" game.  Just to be transparent (I also have no idea what Arthur is talking about in his vaguely conspiratorial sounding, "major players" quote) I do believe that we will ultimately figure out free energy... the Casimir effect is suggestive of this potential.       

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
Thanks Jim

How does one play wack-a-mole when the mole is a meme?

Isaac Newton had a very unfortunate character. Would we discount his Principia Philosophia on the grounds that we did like the cut of his jib?

The Truth is independent of it's source. I am sure that Attila the Hun uttered many truths on his holiday to Rome.

I assure you that there are heros slaving away to save the world as we speak. Professor Haggelstein only struck gold on his one hundred and twenty sixth hypothesis. All the others were duds. But he has the cold fusion phenomena by the throat now. So do Professor Vyovski, Professor Muelenburg, Celani etc.

A left-brain model of the phenomena (the map) of the terrain is more convincing to modern man than is the Terrain itself. You are a post-enlightenment man, of cause you want a theory first before you accept the empirical evidence. 

I am hoping that this phenomenon will pass. But I am not putting any money down. It seems to be getting stronger.

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 111
Shazam!

Arthur, thanks for clarifying that you were intending to insult me. Jim, thanks for the offer to arrange a  gladiatorial combat to death by boredom. Keep up the good work, and you'll get fission-free fusion banished to the Controversial Topics ghetto along with 911 "conspiracy theories" and this thread.

I can see that the only way I'm going to get any respect, is to build one of these MCF bad boys in my backyard. Then when I sign the contract to supply the electric power for the city of Eugene, I'll be sailing on my yacht with bikini clad Bond girls, or flying to the Caribbean in my nuclear powered Lear jet, while you guys are here serving up sustainable turnips and raspberries.

So let's see… I need Tritium, X-rays and muons. Tritium, as Jim so helpfully pointed out, I can get from exit signs and wristwatches. I went to E-bay and found X-ray tubes starting at five bucks. Or I could just go to the dentist. But the muons, now, there's a problem. Strangely, the Wikipedia article on muon sources only mentions cosmic rays. Google is a little more helpful: a search turns up a wide variety of muon sources, but they all look to be about the size of my house, and probably cost as much as the city of Eugene.

But, the patent says "small and inexpensive". When all else fails, guys, read the directions. The patent explains that in most MCF experiments to date, the muons are generated by accelerating deuterium ions to 800 MeV and slamming them into a deuterium gas, releasing pions which decay to muons. But it goes on to add:
 

… instead of using muons which are expensive (in terms of energy) to create a reduced Bohr radius we employ the idea of creating an effective Hamiltonian in which, because they are coupled to one another, the effective mass of each electron is increased and thus the Bohr radius is decreased. Referring to FIG. 7, a cavity ... containing deuterium atoms or tritium atoms ... has incident upon it a microwave source ... and a magnetic field source ... used to couple electron orbital states with the collective magnetic states of the ensemble of atoms in the cavity resulting in a Hamiltonian in which the effective mass of each atom's electron scales as the number of atoms in the ensemble thus reducing the size of the effective  Bohr radius and decreasing the coulombic barrier to fusion.

 

Shazam!! Except that I need to find a real heavy hitter to explain to me what the bleep does that mean. And he's going to want my yacht.

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
Sorry Jerry.

Whoa! Slow up there Jerry. I am sorry if I have insulted you. I was obviously not being clear enough. But it is hard to be too clear when you are unsure of your audience.

There. I hope I have lifted the veil a little higher. But you wont get any plain speaking out of me. No sir! Not a chance. 

Absolutely no insult intended.

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 111
So what were you trying to say, Arthur?

If you can't speak plainly, why speak at all? Please do spell things out for me.

Who are you insinuating is the opposite of "sweetness and light"?  And who is the "nobody" who is not hearing me?

There have been 796 reads for this thread so far, and all of them are smart enough to know that PeakProsperity is one of the best places to have a conversation on the web. That's not "nobody" in my book.

Do you agree with my interpretation of the WTC tritium report? Nowhere near enough contaminant sources were found, so the remaining explanation is that the water was tritiated in situ by neutron bombardment. How could that have happened, if not by a fusion event such as I'm describing?

There's just one thing you said that smacks of plain speaking. I guess you couldn't help yourself. "Haggelstein only struck gold on his one hundred and twenty sixth hypothesis. All the others were duds. But he has the cold fusion phenomena by the throat now...."

What's he got? Any technology that you could use to light up New York, or blow up Fallujah? Link please.

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
For Jerry, And the Death of Big Carbon.

Here some links for you Jerry. 

The ICCF 17 menu.

Here is Prof Hagelstein giving his lecture.

I was impressed by Professor Vyotskii's presentation

Biberian showed that a  catastrophe on a quiescent experiment was demonstrated to be non chemical in a staight forward Myth-Busters sort of way. It involves things that go bang entertainingly. Much to the amusement of spooks who might be lurking just behind you.

You have enought material there to keep you occupied until they meet again at the ICC18 at the end of July  in the USA. So you can attend yourself.

Knock yourself out, and help spread the word. Big Carbon is going Down.

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 111
Not what I asked for.

I didn't ask for enough links and video to keep me busy 'til the end of July. The link to Hagelstein's lecture is broken, and besides, I really don't want to sit through a lecture. I want patents or peer reviewed papers. Where's the beef?

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
Dirty Deeds, Done Dirt Cheap.

There is a blanket ban on anything that looks like Cold Fusion both by the Patents office and by the Scientific journals. Even if palladium is mentioned the door is automatically slammed shut.

Except for a patent given to NASA. (Dirty Deeds, Done Dirt Cheap.)

However, here are thousands of papers to peruse at you leasure.

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 111
Just one paper?

911 Truth has been under a similar ban from the mainstream, and so they set up their own journal and did their own peer review. That lasted a couple years until it turned into 911 Pravda.

I just want one paper? That's been vetted by a couple other physicists before publication?

I gave you just one patent. Did you even look at it?

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2379
Like a moth to a flame..

I can't stay away from this thread. 

JerryR... have you actually dealt with technology and patents in your day job? 

1)  Patents seldom tell a complete story, and often contain purposeful obfuscation so as not to clearly "teach" every aspect of the practical application of the core technology.  

2)  How long has development been progressing on Tokomak-based fusion.. since the mid-50's?  How many patents exist in this space... thousands?  And yet, there does not exist a working, self-sustaining energy positive version yet.  

You are telling us that, based on ONE patent that purports to see a way through on the hurdles clearly in the way of MCF... that not only should we believe that working devices exist, but that they were used in taking down the twin towers.  Among the 911 truthers, and I am not one who would argue against the fact that it may have been a false flag attack of sorts... you have the various debates about what, if anything, helped take down the buildings.  Was it Nanothermite... more mature nuclear based on fission-fusion, or fission-only?  Or something really far out like MCF?  These debates are always educational... and the more I read, the more convinced I become that the MCF idea is very, very far-fetched.

This guy goes down the rabbit hole... and also veers away from the MCF theory;   

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2009/07/final-word-on-tritium.html

The most likely type of nuclear bombs used, was the type that could be made the smallest, and was the simplest, and most proven/dependable (compared to the others). This was the “good old” pure fission form of nuclear bombs. As I have shown, they’re even backpackable. And in the final analysis-- given ternary fission-- there never was any basis for claiming that the nuke(s) used at the WTC had to be 4th generation pure fusion, nor even that there was any fusion at all at the WTC. We may never be able to prove exactly what happened regarding the nuclear destruction of the WTC on 9/11, by the American regime; but we should strive to emphasize the most likely, and the most dependable factors the American regime would have used. And we must realize that the regime wanted to hide the China Syndrome Aftermath, as that poisoned thousands of responders, and to a lesser extent, millions of metro NY residents.

So any tritium found on 9/13/01 at the WTC, was most likely from ternary fission, not fusion. But if you want one more, perhaps crucial, plausibility argument, here it is. Fusion bombs have a history of having a yield larger than expected. And the perps strenuously wanted NOT to blow through the building in an obvious nuclear manner. A nuke having a yield larger than needed could not be risked. This would have been visible to thousands, perhaps millions; and such knowledge would have been difficult to contain. (Whereas radiation findings were controlled by FEMA, and the Gestapo regime need only scream “national security” to prevent release of such data-- including the tritium paper, if it had wanted to.) I have emphasized the need not to blow through the building in an obvious nuclear way, since my very first article herein. This is one reason why some conventional explosives may have been used during the destruction scenario, as I have also written.

      

 

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
My Position on this.

The 911 incident might loom large in your mind, but it is completely insignificant in the context of things. Just another bit of nastyness by a pathetic Ape.

The climatologists say that a good case can be made for the complete extinction of All life on this planet by 2030.

I had hoped that Cold Fusion might give us breathing room to get to L4, as I argue in this piece that I wrote for Cold fusion Now.

So Jerry, if you want to explore this thing, by all means go for it. I prefer poetry.

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it

The rubiat.

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2379
Well said Arthur

You said,

The 911 incident might loom large in your mind, but it is completely insignificant in the context of things. Just another bit of nastyness by a pathetic Ape.

Agreed, for multiple reasons. 

 

jerryr's picture
jerryr
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 31 2008
Posts: 111
No fission at the WTC

Jones addressed that question long ago. The long-lived, highly radioactive isotopes that you would expect from conventional fission technology, are completely missing from the WTC. See:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

Cold War era nuclear fusion technology was difficult to contain, but the same is not true of Mormon Controlled Fusion.

 

dnagara's picture
dnagara
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 10 2013
Posts: 1
Lockheed's Skunk Works is on it

what do you guys think?

old news?

Link below to Google's "Solve for X" talk from Charles Chase representing Skunk Works 

Transitioner's picture
Transitioner
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2012
Posts: 9
Anyone else here read John

Anyone else here read John Michael Greer? these technofix threads are a great source of evening amusement if you're up on your history.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments