A Muon-catalyzed fusion: muon number problem

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter STZweig
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Muon-catalyzed fusion (MCF) in warm-dense matter may yield energy gains of 10 to 10,000 times the energy required to produce muons, according to a recent paper. However, the feasibility of using MCF as a practical power source is hindered by the challenge of generating an adequate number of muons, which current technology cannot achieve. While MCF could potentially enhance traditional inertial confinement fusion (ICF) by reducing instability issues, it still faces significant hurdles in muon production. The process of generating muons for a reactor could be simplified, as they do not need to be focused into a coherent beam. Overall, the discussion highlights both the potential and the substantial challenges of implementing muon-catalyzed fusion as a viable energy source.
STZweig
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I recently read a paper "Meson-catalyzed fusion in ultradense plasmas" (it is behind a paywall: only subscribers to Physical Reviews E can read it) that claims that muon-catalyzed fusion in substances such as warm-dense matter lead to cycling rates many orders of magnitude greater than the rates shown for other scenarios. They also claim gains in the range of ~10-10000. I should note that the gains here are the ratios of the energy output to the energy required to produce the muons. However even if these gains are correct (and I am skeptical), there is another issue that I don't see anyone mention when discussing the potential of using muon-catalyzed fusion (MCF) as a power source: muon number. If we wanted to use MCF in a practical power plant, I am quite sure that the number of muons we would need is unobtainable at the moment Delivering the world’s most intense muon beam. Is there something I am missing that negates the problem?

Despite this, it may be possible to use MCF to spark traditional inertial confinement fusion (ICF), but the only advantage that this has that I know of is that it would be impacted less by instabilities compared to normal fast-ignition ICF.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Producing the muons for a MCF reactor would be a bit easier since they wouldn't necissarily have to be focused and accelerated into a coherent beam, they just have to end up in the reaction chamber. This simplifies it a bit, and might reduce or eliminate time spent outside the reactor not catylizing anything.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Some confusion with the Binding Energy graph of atoms'
My question is about the following graph: I keep on reading that fusing atoms up until Fe-56 doesn’t cost energy and only releases binding energy. However, I understood that fusing atoms also require energy to overcome the positive charges of the protons. Where does that energy go after fusion? Does it go into the mass of the newly fused atom, escape as heat or is the released binding energy shown in the graph actually the net energy after subtracting the required fusion energy? I...