On 09/27/2015 11:23 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
RE: [Vo]:Revelations
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?
