On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Mauro Lacy <ma...@lacy.com.ar
<mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar>> wrote:
On 09/27/2015 11:23 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
To summarizethepresent LENRsituation, ifLeifHolmlid’s workis
accurate:
The importantspecificdetail which is easy to overlook, since
manygroupshave pursuedmuon catalyzed fusion “MCF”for decades, is
thatnowin 2015,thereappears to betwo basic varietiesof MCF–the
old version requiringhighenergy input andthe new version which is
more robust- andis alow energyprocess
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 itselfand thus involves
positive feedback and a limited chain reactionwith 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 theMCFfield, and most of the R&D prior to
Holmlid, waspursuingMCF/h. The economics for MCF/h appear to be
hopelessly expensive, due to the need for a beam-line toproducemuons.
Notably,the secondversionMCF/crequires dense deuteriumthe first
does not.This appears to be an absolute requirement. No dense
deuterium, no MCF/c.
An accelerator is not needed ifa population ofdense 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
enoughfor fusion, and theMCF/crequires a light source,which can
be in the visible or IR range-andpreferentiallythis isa coherent
light source.It can be a low-powered laserfor instance.
Finally, there could beone or moreversions 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
earlyexperimentsinadvertently produced dense deuteriumor
not.Since the early experiments did not produceverymuch gamma or
neutron radiation,it is tempting to opine thatthis impliesthey
were operating in the MCF/c range,and wereproducing dense
deuteriumand undetected muons.Early cold fusion work
wasdifficultto replicate. This could indicate that an unknown
parameter waspresent andnot always being met. For MCF/c, that
parameter could have been aproperlight 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?
