Article 4727 of sci.physics: Subject: Muon-catalysed fusion vs newer cold fusion Keywords:

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Article 4727 of sci.physics: Path: dasys1!cucard!rocky8!cmcl2!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!sam.cs.cmu.edu!vac From: vac@sam.cs.cmu.edu (Vincent Cate) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Muon-catalysed fusion vs newer cold fusion Keywords: muon catalysed cold fusion palladium Message-ID: <4621@pt.cs.cmu.edu> Date: 31 Mar 89 23:40:42 GMT Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Lines: 44 Posted: Fri Mar 31 18:40:42 1989 I have already received several responses to my post saying that there is a difference between muon catalyzed cold fusion and the new type of cold fusion that uses palladium. I realize this! However, both types of fusion are based on the idea of getting deuterium nuclei close together so that the quantum mechanical probability of them ending up in the same place and fusing is increased. In the more common approach to fusion the idea is to get the atoms HOT enough that they are moving fast enough that some of the nuclei overcome the repulsion from the electron cloud and run into each other. In palladium type of cold fusion some metal is used to bring the deuterium nuclei close together. Palladium can hold 1000 to 3000 times its volume in deuterium, so the deuterium atoms are as close together as they would be if they were under 1000 to 3000 atmospheres of pressure. Since the nuclei are closer together and the probability of being in the exact same place is increased, thus the increased fusion rate. Its not yet clear to me if the palladium is doing more than concentrating the deuterium. Does anybody know? In muon fusion one electron in a deuterium molecule is replaced by a muon which is much heavier. This causes deuterium molecule to get about 200 times smaller. It then takes about 10ee-12 seconds, on average, for the nuclei to end up in the same place and fuse. The problem is that it takes energy to make the muon, it has a short life, and so far we have only been able to get about 150 fusion per muon. If either making muons took less energy (its not at all efficient now) or each muon catalysed more reactions this could make energy. It seems that we (and the press) could have been just as excited by muon fusion if it had generated energy. Also, we could have ignored the palladium type of fusion if it did not sound like it had commercial potential. It also seems that what was learned while working on the muon type of fusion lead to the palladium type of fusion. -- Vince ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I am not a physicist and would not bet my life on the accuracy of the above, so you should not either. --

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank