The proper term for the fission reaction is "Muon induced fission"
See https://plus.google.com/114022067216398253558/posts/6h3gEA3YcSb On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > You need to add a few more dots to your analysis. High energy particles > have also been detected using protium. > > See: > > F. Olofson and L. Holmlid, "Detection of MeV particles from ultra-dense > protium p(-1): laser-initiated self-compression from p(1)". > Nucl. Intr. Meth. B 278 (2012) 34-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.nimb.2012.01.036. > > Muons can also catalyze fission of heavy Z elements like uranium and > thorium as seen in LENR > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion > > Holmlid says that he detects many other subatomic particles other than > muons including mesons: B mesons, K mesons, and pions. > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> 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. >> >> >> 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? >> >> >
