Robin wrote: > Assuming a radius of 10 fm for the nucleus of a Uranium atom, to which a > negative muon would be attracted, and thus gain kinetic energy, coming from "infinitely" far away, the muon would gain about 13 MeV of kinetic energy. That's more than enough to fission even U238 (or any actinide for that matter) directly. Which means thorium is in play... (India has a lot of thorium and could be an early adopter)
> So whether the muons are created by a proton beam or from UDH probably > wouldn't make any difference. This would result in complete "burn up" of Uranium in the reactor, leaving no long lived actinide waste. Yes, the argument could be made that muon catalyzed fission despite the name - is in fact, cleaner than fusion. So the bottom line is still the same: "does the Holmlid effect, and/or the Norront implementation of same, really produce a flux of ultra cheap muons ? ... as is the claim. Norront is pursuing muon catalyzed fusion (which is probably NOT the best utilization of muons, given the high cost of heavy water) but it is not too late to change horses. Putting all the details in perspective - both scientific and economic - India see,s like the perfect place to implement a muon catalyzed thorium fission reactor. What is the downside, other than to the purveyors of traditional fission of enriched U? Let's hope India can first survive the pandemic... and second that Bill Gates or another benefactor gets wind of this...
