| New Reply |
Is Muon-Catalyzed fusion possible with room temperature, gaseous Deuterium? |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| Aug12-12, 01:37 AM | #1 |
|
|
Is Muon-Catalyzed fusion possible with room temperature, gaseous Deuterium?
I've been reading about the more or less discarded study of LEFR (Low-Energy Fusion Reactions) and I've read that the only repeatable LEFR process has been Muon-Catalyzed Fusion -- whereas the muon replaces an electron in a deuterium atom and overcomes Coloumb's barrier by attracting itself toward the proton of another deuterium atom, close enough that the strong force kicks in and the two nuclei fuse and emit the muon -- which either goes on to catalyze more reactions or (1 - 2% probability) becomes "stuck" to the emitted alpha particle.
I've read that this has been achieved with Hydrogen isotopes (most notably deuterium) frozen in a block at around 3 or 4 Kelvin. I assume this is to bring the nuclei as close together so each muon survives longer as it spends less time attracting each pair of nuclei because it has less distance to cover. My question is, if I had a 2 L vacuum that I completely drained of air, then filled with 2 L of deuterium gas, could a muon stream cause significant (or measurable) amounts of fusion amongst the nuclei of the deuterium gas? How could I measure the energy emitted -- what physical tools would I use? Could I simply use muons that naturally land on Earth (10,000 per square meter per second, I believe)? Why/why not? If not, where could one obtain a steady source of muons, and how could I tell how many muons I would need per liter of 99.9999% deuterium gas? |
| Aug12-12, 02:22 AM | #2 |
|
Recognitions:
|
I had the same idea when I was an undergraduate.
To see how muon catalyzed fusion is done IRL there are various purpose-build reactors. eg. ISIS. The main trouble is to reuse the muon enough before it decays to make up for the cost of producing it ... but like you, I wondered if cosmic ray muons could be used instead, since they are free. I worked out that even with ideal conversion, I'd need something like several square kms of collector to get a few milliWatts. The muon flux is just too low. The upper atmosphere is our only naturally occurring source of muons. Presumably we could up the flux by moving the planet closer to the Sun. Even though it was a dead end, I had oodles of fun reading old papers and conference procedings. |
| Aug12-12, 06:19 AM | #3 |
|
Mentor
|
Muons from cosmic rays are high-energetic (otherwise they would not reach the surface at all due to their short lifetime). While they can be stopped in material, deuterium is probably a bad target as it is very light. At the same time, you cannot use heavier atoms as they simply keep the muons they catch. To get the Milliwatts calculated by Simon Bridge, you probably need an insane height of your deuterium, too. 1km of water absorbs a significant part of the muons, this is equivalent to several km of frozen deuterium. Several cubic kilometers with some mW heat production inside... no way to use this. With gas and its low density, it is worse by ~3 orders of magnitude.
|
| Aug12-12, 08:38 AM | #4 |
|
|
Is Muon-Catalyzed fusion possible with room temperature, gaseous Deuterium?
I don't think room temperature is nearly high enough to cause significant amounts of fusion of any kind, even muon-catalyzed.
|
| Aug12-12, 08:42 AM | #5 |
|
Mentor
|
With enough muons, you get significant fusion - fusion with muons is temperature-independent (as long as it is cold enough to have deuterium molecules).
|
| Aug12-12, 10:00 AM | #6 |
|
Recognitions:
|
@mfb: yep - I wasted a lot of time on schemes for slowing them down which usually just meant I was selecting a narrow range of speeds before I realized I could do a plausibility check really easily by just working out the collection area for a magic system. I'd also have to collect them all to the target... all kinds of problems.
The other approach is to minimize the various processes that remove muons from the cycle like He3 poisoning. I suppose the simple answers to OP's questions, in order, are: yes yes when I last did this it was common to use neutron detectors to demonstrate fusion - and calorimetry to measure the energy output (or just rig it to do work on something). kinda see above from a particle accelerator yes ... did I miss one? Tie to hear from OP - hope we are not too discouraging. |
| Aug12-12, 12:29 PM | #7 |
|
|
Note: I have a huge amount of questions and while I would love a detailed response to each question, I understand that this is unrealistic and I would be grateful of a response to any individual question. So, basically, the deuterium must be frozen to a very low degree Kelvin because it must be thicker to catch the deuterium? It has nothing to do with bringing the nuclei closer together? Is there any way to test or calculate which element or isotope is the perfect mass for catching deuterium? If water catches deuterium, H20 atoms wouldn't fuse simply because they have more than one electron and the muon can only replace one? I looked into calorimeters but it seems like most of these devices are based on burning an object in a vessel surrounded by water, and comparing the water's pre- and post-reaction temperatures to determine the energy change. How would this work with a block of frozen deuterium? When you talk about the various processes that remove muons from the cycle, I thought the only such thing was the alpha particle sticking possibility of 1 or 2%. What is He3 poisoning and what other problems exist? Could the alpha sticking possibility be overcome with the implementation of charged electromagnets (e.g. the deuterium is in a cylindrical tube, a muon source enters at the leftmost end, and the negative electromagnet is affixed to the rightmost end of the tube. Muons would be literally dragged from deuterium to deuterium)? I've read about amateurs setting up fusion reactors in their backyards with deuterium extracted heavy water or with deuterium gas. Somehow they could stimulate dd fusion with copious amounts of energy and, from what I've read, it seems they simply expose an electrode into the chamber filled with deuterium gas and run the electricity down the electrode into the gas. How is this done? Could it be done with other gases? How does one calculate how much electricity is necessary per liter of fuel? And, more importantly than the other questions, could electricity supplement part of energy necessary for the fusion reaction in a gas while muons (possibly from the sun in very small quantities of the gas) overcome Coloumb's barrier? It seems that excited deuterium gas would be much easier to fuse with the help of a muon. |
| Aug12-12, 01:34 PM | #8 |
|
Mentor
|
Solid deuterium decreases the time between fusion processes, and therefore increases the rate of fusion reactions per muon. It works with deuterium gas, too, but the fusion rate is lower and the required volume is larger. It is not useful to freeze it - if you want to use that as heat source, it should be hotter than the environment. Pressure is better.
There is no such thing as a "charged electromagnet" or I do not know what you mean. |
| Aug12-12, 02:30 PM | #9 |
|
|
Yes amateur fusion can be done at home. Look up the Fusor. Id explain more but mobile devices and typing don't mix well.
Could someone explain how a muon causes nuclei to get so close together? |
| Aug12-12, 05:49 PM | #10 |
|
|
First off, sorry, I made a few mistakes late last night.
I don't think I could easily calculate the temperature with traditional formulas, even if I recorded changes in pressure, because I would be unsure as to how much of the deuterium gas had truly been fused. http://hackaday.com/2007/03/18/make-...usion-reactor/ Those are the two tabs I still have open from last night. I know there's another electronic deuterium fusor out there, made by an adult, but I'm afraid I've closed the tab. Perhaps I've saved a link to it somewhere. Would a device like this help muons to fuse pressured deuterium gas? Could one simply construct a glass vacuum chamber, suck out all the air, pump in as much deuterium gas as possible, run electricity through the electrode and record increases in temperature (using the electricity to supplement or completely replace muons resulting from cosmic rays)? |
| Aug12-12, 05:49 PM | #11 |
|
Mentor
|
In DD molecules, you get the same thing. The binding length is determined by the orbitals of the electrons/muons. It would be better to replace both electrons, but replacing one is sufficient. Edit: Maybe you can removed the muons with intense lasers or something like that, but I doubt that the efficiency would be relevant. |
| Aug12-12, 06:14 PM | #12 |
|
|
Also, why would a powerplant be more interesting? Could one use any pure gas (e.g. 99.9999% helium, or deuterium) in an amateur fusor like the one in my links? |
| Aug13-12, 03:36 AM | #13 |
|
Recognitions:
|
There's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywel...olywell" fusor. It has attracted some academic interest eg. Santarius J. F.
Performance of Polywell inertial-electrostatic confinement for applications; (Plasma Science, 1995. IEEE Conference Record - Abstracts., 1995 IEEE International Conference on) ... trouble finding anything in more stringently peer-reviewed publications. There's a bunch of Bussards papers from the 70's though. The fusors featured in the links are along the lines of this one My first pass through it I cannot tell how much is pseudoscience - there is a lot of waffle in it. The idea seems to be to use electrostatic containment to give a particle beam many passes through the target. Particles are mostly scattered off the target nuclei ... conceptually each pass has a small chance of fusing so lots of passes is good right? The thing with fusion is not in getting the reaction to happen at all so much as getting a sustainable reaction. This is the problem with the muons remember? You also need to be aware that here is a LOT of pseudoscience and just plain junk science in the amateur fusion crowd. Be very careful. If the devices worked the way the proponents often claim then we'd be using them commercially by now and the academic literature would be full of models describing them. |
| Aug13-12, 07:42 AM | #14 |
|
Mentor
|
|
| Aug13-12, 12:30 PM | #15 |
|
|
|
| Aug13-12, 12:51 PM | #16 |
|
|
Also, when it says "Ions are injected into the device," does that mean that positive ions (potentially those from which the initial electrons were harvested) are put inside the MaGrid? This seems like it would be hard to do, as any injection method (tubes, beams) would be thwarted by the still active positive electromagnets. I understand that once the ions did successfully enter the MaGrid and were attracted to the well and were additionally pushed towards the well by the positive electromagnets, they would be very strongly held together and fusion would be possible. So, my questions are: 1. How do the electrons stay in the middle of the MaGrid to create a negative potential well? 2. From where are the electrons harvested? 3. What is the charge of the ions and from where are the ions harvested? 4. How are the ions injected into the device? 5. Could the electromagnets that form the MaGrid be temporarily killed so that the positive ions could be introduced? Would this disrupt the negative potential well of electrons? 6. How does one determine the electron to ion ratio or how much electricity should be run through the electromagnets? 7. Wouldn't the electrons that form the negative potential well get in the way of the fusion of the ions? 8. Why doesn't this achieve break-even (I assume if it did we would be using it everyday)? 9. Would detecting neutron flux be the most effective method of measuring fusion effectiveness in this device? 10. How is Bremsstrahlung loss calculated? I know it's been calculated before for this device, but there is controversy and I would like to learn how to do it myself even if it takes longer than actually understanding the polywell. 11. How does one tell how large the electromagnets must be or what their charge must be in order to project no field in the very center of the MaGrid? 12. How does the mass of the electrons act as a "big point charge"? You also need to be aware that here is a LOT of pseudoscience and just plain junk science in the amateur fusion crowd. Be very careful. If the devices worked the way the proponents often claim then we'd be using them commercially by now and the academic literature would be full of models describing them.[/QUOTE] |
| Aug13-12, 02:02 PM | #17 |
|
|
|
| New Reply |
| Tags |
| dd fusion, fusion, lefr, muon, muon-catalyzed |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: Is Muon-Catalyzed fusion possible with room temperature, gaseous Deuterium?
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| hydrogen atom, muon substitution, helium muon fusion | Advanced Physics Homework | 4 | ||
| Muon-Catalyzed Fusion in the Upper Atmosphere | Nuclear Engineering | 6 | ||
| Muon-Catalyzed Fusion of Metallic Hydrogen | High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics | 3 | ||
| Tau-Catalyzed Fusion | High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics | 1 | ||
| muon catalyzed fusion | General Physics | 0 | ||