Positron Antimatter catalyzed fusion propulsion

We can produce very little antimatter and what we make is very difficult to store. These have been huge obstacles that have made antimatter propulsion many trillions of times beyond technological capabilities.

Positron Dynamics and Ryan Weed get around these issues by using isotopes of Krypton or sodium which naturally produce positrons (anti-electrons). They can use tiny amounts of Krypton isotopes to generation 100 billion to many trillions of positrons. They can also breed more of Krypton 79 isotopes by exposing Krypton 78 to neutrons.

Using a NASA NIAC study they have worked out more details and produced renderings of what the systems will look like.

They have worked out the reaction rate of the catalyzed fusion (R=0.1).

They have determined the mass, size and thickness of various materials.
They have worked out the moderation of the positrons (slowing down the positrons to use them).

138 thoughts on “Positron Antimatter catalyzed fusion propulsion”

  1. I’m curious if there is actually a simulation package that would cover annihilation and fusion reactions, I suppose that would be very handy for designing a positron initiated fusion thruster. I proposed positron initiated micro fusion in 2013, but I assumed there would be a “positron battery”, which is probably implausible for an unstable rocket. I was amazed and delirious when I saw that Positron Dynamics actually made a similar concept plausible. My calculations showed that you can easily launch an interstellar probe using such a propulsion technology, it doesn’t have to be huge. If anyone’s interested, I uploaded an extended version of the preprint of the 2013 paper on researchgate. I wrote this for 100 Year Starship Symposium, so the objective was to conceive of a mission that can be launched within 100 years. Enjoy.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329020475_Artificial_Intelligence_and_Brain_Simulation_Probes_for_Interstellar_Expeditions

    Reply
  2. Actually, muon induced fusion HAS been demonstrated. It just takes too much energy to generate the muons to reach breakeven.

    Reply
  3. Well I’m not speaking to your SPECIFIC complaint, but quite counter-intuitively; it’s actually simpler to get some fusion architectures working for a spacecraft engine than it is for a terrestrial reactor for various reasons. Generally, the fusion reaction may simply be providing you with an extremely energetic “working fluid” to use, you don’t necessarily need it to be a breakeven device, or even very efficient at all for it to still be better than any ion or Hall thruster in existence. For instance IEC fusion in jet mode is well suited to propulsion, whereas getting power generation from it – especially breakeven power generation – would be quite a bit harder.

    Reply
  4. Actually muon induced fusion HAS been demonstrated. It just takes too much energy to generate the muons to reach breakeven.

    Reply
  5. Well I’m not speaking to your SPECIFIC complaint but quite counter-intuitively; it’s actually simpler to get some fusion architectures working for a spacecraft engine than it is for a terrestrial reactor for various reasons. Generally the fusion reaction may simply be providing you with an extremely energetic working fluid”” to use”” you don’t necessarily need it to be a breakeven device or even very efficient at all for it to still be better than any ion or Hall thruster in existence. For instance IEC fusion in jet mode is well suited to propulsion”” whereas getting power generation from it – especially breakeven power generation – would be quite a bit harder.”””

    Reply
  6. I thought muon fusion was established science? Wiki mentions a number of more recent and even current projects that are working on it. One guy, Gordon Pusch, a physicist at Argonne National Laboratory, even claims that muon fusion is already operating at over physical breakeven. That the energy out is greater than energy in. However the ration is something like 1:1.00001 and the energy out is in the form of low grade heat so don’t sell your coal shares just yet.

    Reply
  7. They say “positron catalysis of fusion” but what does that actually mean? From an earlier article on NBF positron emission: ²²Na → ²²Ne + 1 e⁺ + 0.94 MeV of kinetic energy positron annihilation: e⁺ + matter → pion (5%) or kaon (95%) kaon decay: kaon → muon (80%) in 20 nsec muon capture: muon + D or T → mD or mT fusion (1): mD + T → ⁴He + ¹n + muon (non-consumed) (0.01 – 0.1 nsec) fusion (2): mT + D → ⁴He + ¹n + muon (non-consumed) (0.01 – 0.1 nsec) fusion (3): mD + D → ³He + ¹n + muon (non-consumed) (0.07 – 1.5 nsec) muon decay: muon + time → electron + neutrinos (2,200 nsec) So there you have it. Positrons react to form kaons or pions. They decay to form muons. Actual muons are involved in the fusion reactions.

    Reply
  8. Pull what thread? I watched the presentation, there’s not a word about muons or any way of producing muons. Lots of stuff about positrons though. You’re the one talking nonsense. Also he didn’t claim to have built a rocket engine. So far it’s just ideas and some small experiments.

    Reply
  9. Not sure he has actually watched the video. Most people don’t watch video’s over 30 sec or read articles anymore. It requires more time and patience. Plus most people make up their minds on whether to believe something before they actually read anything. Merely look for that which confirms or denies their biases then pronounces guilt or innocence.

    Reply
  10. I thought muon fusion was established science? Wiki mentions a number of more recent and even current projects that are working on it.One guy Gordon Pusch a physicist at Argonne National Laboratory even claims that muon fusion is already operating at over physical breakeven. That the energy out is greater than energy in. However the ration is something like 1:1.00001 and the energy out is in the form of low grade heat so don’t sell your coal shares just yet.

    Reply
  11. They say positron catalysis of fusion”” but what does that actually mean?From an earlier article on NBFpositron emission: ²²Na → ²²Ne + 1 e⁺ + 0.94 MeV of kinetic energypositron annihilation: e⁺ + matter → pion (5{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}) or kaon (95{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12})kaon decay: kaon → muon (80{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}) in 20 nsecmuon capture: muon + D or T → mD or mTfusion (1): mD + T → ⁴He + ¹n + muon (non-consumed) (0.01 – 0.1 nsec)fusion (2): mT + D → ⁴He + ¹n + muon (non-consumed) (0.01 – 0.1 nsec)fusion (3): mD + D → ³He + ¹n + muon (non-consumed) (0.07 – 1.5 nsec)muon decay: muon + time → electron + neutrinos (2″”””200 nsec)So there you have it. Positrons react to form kaons or pions. They decay to form muons. Actual muons are involved in the fusion reactions.”””””””

    Reply
  12. Pull what thread? I watched the presentation there’s not a word about muons or any way of producing muons. Lots of stuff about positrons though. You’re the one talking nonsense.Also he didn’t claim to have built a rocket engine. So far it’s just ideas and some small experiments.

    Reply
  13. That’s true, and why I didn’t dispute that they were talking muon catylized fusion, just pointed out that it had been demonstrated. The radioactive Krypton is being used as an indirect source of muons for muon catylized fusion. My issue with their proposal is that there are a lot of intermediate steps before the thrust, most of them taking place in solid state components. I’ll give them this, their drawings do include radiators. But the thrust can’t be very high given how much heat they have to extract from the intermediate components.

    Reply
  14. Not sure he has actually watched the video. Most people don’t watch video’s over 30 sec or read articles anymore. It requires more, time and patience. Plus most people make up their minds on whether to believe something before they actually read anything. Merely look for that which confirms or denies their biases then pronounces guilt or innocence.

    Reply
  15. That’s true and why I didn’t dispute that they were talking muon catylized fusion just pointed out that it had been demonstrated. The radioactive Krypton is being used as an indirect source of muons for muon catylized fusion.My issue with their proposal is that there are a lot of intermediate steps before the thrust most of them taking place in solid state components. I’ll give them this their drawings do include radiators. But the thrust can’t be very high given how much heat they have to extract from the intermediate components.

    Reply
  16. Figure out the energy budget for making heavy kaons, pions and muons from light positrons. The positrons have to have very high kinetic energies to make those much heavier particles.

    Reply
  17. I’m unconvinced. There’s something missing from Ryan’s arguments; His isotopes of krypton make 500 kV positrons. But you cannot use them to catalyse fusion. Much more energetic positrons are necessary to make kaons and pions that decay into muons that can promote muonic fusion. There’s no way for making muons from his positrons. Seems like a fraud.

    Reply
  18. Figure out the energy budget for making heavy kaons pions and muons from light positrons.The positrons have to have very high kinetic energies to make those much heavier particles.

    Reply
  19. I’m unconvinced. There’s something missing from Ryan’s arguments;His isotopes of krypton make 500 kV positrons. But you cannot use them to catalyse fusion. Much more energetic positrons are necessary to make kaons and pions that decay into muons that can promote muonic fusion. There’s no way for making muons from his positrons. Seems like a fraud.

    Reply
  20. I found a recent article about an accelerator they built in Japan. Its called MuSIC and it makes muons at a tenth the energy cost of other methods. I’m looking for people who will fund a study and work on a crowdfunding campaign.

    Reply
  21. How amusing, their own website refers people here for the technical details. The original concept is supposed to involve the positrons producing localized heating inside a deuterium dense substrate, resulting in fusion reactions. Now they have an intermediate step where the positrons are supposed to result in a nuclear decay which produces a muon. I’m unclear how this happens, though, as positrons are positively charged, and so are nuclii, and so getting a low energy positron to cause a nuclear decay is pretty much impossible. Yeah, I’d be a lot more impressed is they prominently posted an explanation of the proposed physics.

    Reply
  22. I found a recent article about an accelerator they built in Japan. Its called MuSIC and it makes muons at a tenth the energy cost of other methods. I’m looking for people who will fund a study and work on a crowdfunding campaign.

    Reply
  23. How amusing their own website refers people here for the technical details.The original concept is supposed to involve the positrons producing localized heating inside a deuterium dense substrate resulting in fusion reactions. Now they have an intermediate step where the positrons are supposed to result in a nuclear decay which produces a muon. I’m unclear how this happens though as positrons are positively charged and so are nuclii and so getting a low energy positron to cause a nuclear decay is pretty much impossible.Yeah I’d be a lot more impressed is they prominently posted an explanation of the proposed physics.

    Reply
  24. I am by no means saying this WORKS. I have no particle physics background. Don’t ask me anything more complicated than first year uni. I don’t even know why splitting boron into smaller nuclei is called fusion and not fission. I’m just explaining the (already given, but not in this article) story of what Scaryjello is talking about when he starts on about muons and others get confused because the OP talked of positrons.

    Reply
  25. Anything capable of interstellar speeds is automatically a weapon of terrible power. And as your probe gets closer and closer to light speed, the difference between a lump of matter and a burst of high speed subatomic particles becomes meaningless.

    Reply
  26. I am by no means saying this WORKS.I have no particle physics background. Don’t ask me anything more complicated than first year uni.I don’t even know why splitting boron into smaller nuclei is called fusion and not fission.I’m just explaining the (already given but not in this article) story of what Scaryjello is talking about when he starts on about muons and others get confused because the OP talked of positrons.

    Reply
  27. Anything capable of interstellar speeds is automatically a weapon of terrible power. And as your probe gets closer and closer to light speed the difference between a lump of matter and a burst of high speed subatomic particles becomes meaningless.

    Reply
  28. From wikipendia; K± 493.677 MeV/c2 positrons emitted from Na22 have a rest mass of 0.94 MeV. meaning they have an energy deficit of 492.737 MeV to make kaons from positrons. Maybe we can use the mumbo-jumbo-tron!

    Reply
  29. From wikipendia; K± 493.677 MeV/c2positrons emitted from Na22 have a rest mass of0.94 MeV. meaning they have an energy deficit of492.737 MeV to make kaons from positrons. Maybe we can use the mumbo-jumbo-tron!

    Reply
  30. If you’re talking about pB11, I suspect the initial reaction is p + 11B –> 12C* , which would be considered fusion, since you’re fusing together two nuclei to form a larger one. However, the carbon ends up in an unstable excited state (denoted by the asterisk), and fissions. So it’s actually a fusion-fission reaction. I couldn’t find a source that confirms this, but I did find there are some side reactions that produce stable carbon. Compared to uranium fission, the primary difference is that the latter uses neutrons, which aren’t nuclei. Protons are.

    Reply
  31. If you’re talking about pB11 I suspect the initial reaction is p + 11B –> 12C* which would be considered fusion since you’re fusing together two nuclei to form a larger one. However the carbon ends up in an unstable excited state (denoted by the asterisk) and fissions. So it’s actually a fusion-fission reaction.I couldn’t find a source that confirms this but I did find there are some side reactions that produce stable carbon. Compared to uranium fission the primary difference is that the latter uses neutrons which aren’t nuclei. Protons are.

    Reply
  32. I’m curious if there is actually a simulation package that would cover annihilation and fusion reactions, I suppose that would be very handy for designing a positron initiated fusion thruster. I proposed positron initiated micro fusion in 2013, but I assumed there would be a “positron battery”, which is probably implausible for an unstable rocket. I was amazed and delirious when I saw that Positron Dynamics actually made a similar concept plausible. My calculations showed that you can easily launch an interstellar probe using such a propulsion technology, it doesn’t have to be huge. If anyone’s interested, I uploaded an extended version of the preprint of the 2013 paper on researchgate. I wrote this for 100 Year Starship Symposium, so the objective was to conceive of a mission that can be launched within 100 years. Enjoy.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329020475_Artificial_Intelligence_and_Brain_Simulation_Probes_for_Interstellar_Expeditions

    Reply
  33. If you’re talking about pB11, I suspect the initial reaction is p + 11B –> 12C* , which would be considered fusion, since you’re fusing together two nuclei to form a larger one. However, the carbon ends up in an unstable excited state (denoted by the asterisk), and fissions. So it’s actually a fusion-fission reaction. I couldn’t find a source that confirms this, but I did find there are some side reactions that produce stable carbon. Compared to uranium fission, the primary difference is that the latter uses neutrons, which aren’t nuclei. Protons are.

    Reply
  34. If you’re talking about pB11 I suspect the initial reaction is p + 11B –> 12C* which would be considered fusion since you’re fusing together two nuclei to form a larger one. However the carbon ends up in an unstable excited state (denoted by the asterisk) and fissions. So it’s actually a fusion-fission reaction.I couldn’t find a source that confirms this but I did find there are some side reactions that produce stable carbon. Compared to uranium fission the primary difference is that the latter uses neutrons which aren’t nuclei. Protons are.

    Reply
  35. From wikipendia; K± 493.677 MeV/c2 positrons emitted from Na22 have a rest mass of 0.94 MeV. meaning they have an energy deficit of 492.737 MeV to make kaons from positrons. Maybe we can use the mumbo-jumbo-tron!

    Reply
  36. From wikipendia; K± 493.677 MeV/c2positrons emitted from Na22 have a rest mass of0.94 MeV. meaning they have an energy deficit of492.737 MeV to make kaons from positrons. Maybe we can use the mumbo-jumbo-tron!

    Reply
  37. I am by no means saying this WORKS. I have no particle physics background. Don’t ask me anything more complicated than first year uni. I don’t even know why splitting boron into smaller nuclei is called fusion and not fission. I’m just explaining the (already given, but not in this article) story of what Scaryjello is talking about when he starts on about muons and others get confused because the OP talked of positrons.

    Reply
  38. I am by no means saying this WORKS.I have no particle physics background. Don’t ask me anything more complicated than first year uni.I don’t even know why splitting boron into smaller nuclei is called fusion and not fission.I’m just explaining the (already given but not in this article) story of what Scaryjello is talking about when he starts on about muons and others get confused because the OP talked of positrons.

    Reply
  39. Anything capable of interstellar speeds is automatically a weapon of terrible power. And as your probe gets closer and closer to light speed, the difference between a lump of matter and a burst of high speed subatomic particles becomes meaningless.

    Reply
  40. Anything capable of interstellar speeds is automatically a weapon of terrible power. And as your probe gets closer and closer to light speed the difference between a lump of matter and a burst of high speed subatomic particles becomes meaningless.

    Reply
  41. If you’re talking about pB11, I suspect the initial reaction is p + 11B –> 12C* , which would be considered fusion, since you’re fusing together two nuclei to form a larger one. However, the carbon ends up in an unstable excited state (denoted by the asterisk), and fissions. So it’s actually a fusion-fission reaction.

    I couldn’t find a source that confirms this, but I did find there are some side reactions that produce stable carbon. Compared to uranium fission, the primary difference is that the latter uses neutrons, which aren’t nuclei. Protons are.

    Reply
  42. I found a recent article about an accelerator they built in Japan. Its called MuSIC and it makes muons at a tenth the energy cost of other methods. I’m looking for people who will fund a study and work on a crowdfunding campaign.

    Reply
  43. I found a recent article about an accelerator they built in Japan. Its called MuSIC and it makes muons at a tenth the energy cost of other methods. I’m looking for people who will fund a study and work on a crowdfunding campaign.

    Reply
  44. How amusing, their own website refers people here for the technical details. The original concept is supposed to involve the positrons producing localized heating inside a deuterium dense substrate, resulting in fusion reactions. Now they have an intermediate step where the positrons are supposed to result in a nuclear decay which produces a muon. I’m unclear how this happens, though, as positrons are positively charged, and so are nuclii, and so getting a low energy positron to cause a nuclear decay is pretty much impossible. Yeah, I’d be a lot more impressed is they prominently posted an explanation of the proposed physics.

    Reply
  45. How amusing their own website refers people here for the technical details.The original concept is supposed to involve the positrons producing localized heating inside a deuterium dense substrate resulting in fusion reactions. Now they have an intermediate step where the positrons are supposed to result in a nuclear decay which produces a muon. I’m unclear how this happens though as positrons are positively charged and so are nuclii and so getting a low energy positron to cause a nuclear decay is pretty much impossible.Yeah I’d be a lot more impressed is they prominently posted an explanation of the proposed physics.

    Reply
  46. Figure out the energy budget for making heavy kaons, pions and muons from light positrons. The positrons have to have very high kinetic energies to make those much heavier particles.

    Reply
  47. Figure out the energy budget for making heavy kaons pions and muons from light positrons.The positrons have to have very high kinetic energies to make those much heavier particles.

    Reply
  48. I’m unconvinced. There’s something missing from Ryan’s arguments; His isotopes of krypton make 500 kV positrons. But you cannot use them to catalyse fusion. Much more energetic positrons are necessary to make kaons and pions that decay into muons that can promote muonic fusion. There’s no way for making muons from his positrons. Seems like a fraud.

    Reply
  49. I’m unconvinced. There’s something missing from Ryan’s arguments;His isotopes of krypton make 500 kV positrons. But you cannot use them to catalyse fusion. Much more energetic positrons are necessary to make kaons and pions that decay into muons that can promote muonic fusion. There’s no way for making muons from his positrons. Seems like a fraud.

    Reply
  50. From wikipendia; K± 493.677 MeV/c2
    positrons emitted from Na22 have a rest mass of
    0.94 MeV. meaning they have an energy deficit of
    492.737 MeV to make kaons from positrons.
    Maybe we can use the mumbo-jumbo-tron!

    Reply
  51. I am by no means saying this WORKS.

    I have no particle physics background. Don’t ask me anything more complicated than first year uni.
    I don’t even know why splitting boron into smaller nuclei is called fusion and not fission.

    I’m just explaining the (already given, but not in this article) story of what Scaryjello is talking about when he starts on about muons and others get confused because the OP talked of positrons.

    Reply
  52. Anything capable of interstellar speeds is automatically a weapon of terrible power. And as your probe gets closer and closer to light speed, the difference between a lump of matter and a burst of high speed subatomic particles becomes meaningless.

    Reply
  53. That’s true, and why I didn’t dispute that they were talking muon catylized fusion, just pointed out that it had been demonstrated. The radioactive Krypton is being used as an indirect source of muons for muon catylized fusion. My issue with their proposal is that there are a lot of intermediate steps before the thrust, most of them taking place in solid state components. I’ll give them this, their drawings do include radiators. But the thrust can’t be very high given how much heat they have to extract from the intermediate components.

    Reply
  54. That’s true and why I didn’t dispute that they were talking muon catylized fusion just pointed out that it had been demonstrated. The radioactive Krypton is being used as an indirect source of muons for muon catylized fusion.My issue with their proposal is that there are a lot of intermediate steps before the thrust most of them taking place in solid state components. I’ll give them this their drawings do include radiators. But the thrust can’t be very high given how much heat they have to extract from the intermediate components.

    Reply
  55. I found a recent article about an accelerator they built in Japan. Its called MuSIC and it makes muons at a tenth the energy cost of other methods. I’m looking for people who will fund a study and work on a crowdfunding campaign.

    Reply
  56. How amusing, their own website refers people here for the technical details.

    The original concept is supposed to involve the positrons producing localized heating inside a deuterium dense substrate, resulting in fusion reactions. Now they have an intermediate step where the positrons are supposed to result in a nuclear decay which produces a muon. I’m unclear how this happens, though, as positrons are positively charged, and so are nuclii, and so getting a low energy positron to cause a nuclear decay is pretty much impossible.

    Yeah, I’d be a lot more impressed is they prominently posted an explanation of the proposed physics.

    Reply
  57. Not sure he has actually watched the video. Most people don’t watch video’s over 30 sec or read articles anymore. It requires more, time and patience. Plus most people make up their minds on whether to believe something before they actually read anything. Merely look for that which confirms or denies their biases then pronounces guilt or innocence.

    Reply
  58. Not sure he has actually watched the video. Most people don’t watch video’s over 30 sec or read articles anymore. It requires more time and patience. Plus most people make up their minds on whether to believe something before they actually read anything. Merely look for that which confirms or denies their biases then pronounces guilt or innocence.

    Reply
  59. I thought muon fusion was established science? Wiki mentions a number of more recent and even current projects that are working on it. One guy, Gordon Pusch, a physicist at Argonne National Laboratory, even claims that muon fusion is already operating at over physical breakeven. That the energy out is greater than energy in. However the ration is something like 1:1.00001 and the energy out is in the form of low grade heat so don’t sell your coal shares just yet.

    Reply
  60. I thought muon fusion was established science? Wiki mentions a number of more recent and even current projects that are working on it.One guy Gordon Pusch a physicist at Argonne National Laboratory even claims that muon fusion is already operating at over physical breakeven. That the energy out is greater than energy in. However the ration is something like 1:1.00001 and the energy out is in the form of low grade heat so don’t sell your coal shares just yet.

    Reply
  61. They say “positron catalysis of fusion” but what does that actually mean? From an earlier article on NBF positron emission: ²²Na → ²²Ne + 1 e⁺ + 0.94 MeV of kinetic energy positron annihilation: e⁺ + matter → pion (5%) or kaon (95%) kaon decay: kaon → muon (80%) in 20 nsec muon capture: muon + D or T → mD or mT fusion (1): mD + T → ⁴He + ¹n + muon (non-consumed) (0.01 – 0.1 nsec) fusion (2): mT + D → ⁴He + ¹n + muon (non-consumed) (0.01 – 0.1 nsec) fusion (3): mD + D → ³He + ¹n + muon (non-consumed) (0.07 – 1.5 nsec) muon decay: muon + time → electron + neutrinos (2,200 nsec) So there you have it. Positrons react to form kaons or pions. They decay to form muons. Actual muons are involved in the fusion reactions.

    Reply
  62. They say positron catalysis of fusion”” but what does that actually mean?From an earlier article on NBFpositron emission: ²²Na → ²²Ne + 1 e⁺ + 0.94 MeV of kinetic energypositron annihilation: e⁺ + matter → pion (5{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}) or kaon (95{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12})kaon decay: kaon → muon (80{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}) in 20 nsecmuon capture: muon + D or T → mD or mTfusion (1): mD + T → ⁴He + ¹n + muon (non-consumed) (0.01 – 0.1 nsec)fusion (2): mT + D → ⁴He + ¹n + muon (non-consumed) (0.01 – 0.1 nsec)fusion (3): mD + D → ³He + ¹n + muon (non-consumed) (0.07 – 1.5 nsec)muon decay: muon + time → electron + neutrinos (2″”””200 nsec)So there you have it. Positrons react to form kaons or pions. They decay to form muons. Actual muons are involved in the fusion reactions.”””””””

    Reply
  63. I’m unconvinced. There’s something missing from Ryan’s arguments;
    His isotopes of krypton make 500 kV positrons. But you cannot use them to catalyse fusion. Much more energetic positrons are necessary to make kaons and pions that decay into muons that can promote muonic fusion. There’s no way for making muons from his positrons. Seems like a fraud.

    Reply
  64. Pull what thread? I watched the presentation, there’s not a word about muons or any way of producing muons. Lots of stuff about positrons though. You’re the one talking nonsense. Also he didn’t claim to have built a rocket engine. So far it’s just ideas and some small experiments.

    Reply
  65. Pull what thread? I watched the presentation there’s not a word about muons or any way of producing muons. Lots of stuff about positrons though. You’re the one talking nonsense.Also he didn’t claim to have built a rocket engine. So far it’s just ideas and some small experiments.

    Reply
  66. Well I’m not speaking to your SPECIFIC complaint, but quite counter-intuitively; it’s actually simpler to get some fusion architectures working for a spacecraft engine than it is for a terrestrial reactor for various reasons. Generally, the fusion reaction may simply be providing you with an extremely energetic “working fluid” to use, you don’t necessarily need it to be a breakeven device, or even very efficient at all for it to still be better than any ion or Hall thruster in existence. For instance IEC fusion in jet mode is well suited to propulsion, whereas getting power generation from it – especially breakeven power generation – would be quite a bit harder.

    Reply
  67. Well I’m not speaking to your SPECIFIC complaint but quite counter-intuitively; it’s actually simpler to get some fusion architectures working for a spacecraft engine than it is for a terrestrial reactor for various reasons. Generally the fusion reaction may simply be providing you with an extremely energetic working fluid”” to use”” you don’t necessarily need it to be a breakeven device or even very efficient at all for it to still be better than any ion or Hall thruster in existence. For instance IEC fusion in jet mode is well suited to propulsion”” whereas getting power generation from it – especially breakeven power generation – would be quite a bit harder.”””

    Reply
  68. That’s true, and why I didn’t dispute that they were talking muon catylized fusion, just pointed out that it had been demonstrated. The radioactive Krypton is being used as an indirect source of muons for muon catylized fusion.

    My issue with their proposal is that there are a lot of intermediate steps before the thrust, most of them taking place in solid state components. I’ll give them this, their drawings do include radiators.

    But the thrust can’t be very high given how much heat they have to extract from the intermediate components.

    Reply
  69. Not sure he has actually watched the video. Most people don’t watch video’s over 30 sec or read articles anymore. It requires more, time and patience. Plus most people make up their minds on whether to believe something before they actually read anything. Merely look for that which confirms or denies their biases then pronounces guilt or innocence.

    Reply
  70. I thought muon fusion was established science? Wiki mentions a number of more recent and even current projects that are working on it.

    One guy, Gordon Pusch, a physicist at Argonne National Laboratory, even claims that muon fusion is already operating at over physical breakeven. That the energy out is greater than energy in. However the ration is something like 1:1.00001 and the energy out is in the form of low grade heat so don’t sell your coal shares just yet.

    Reply
  71. They say “positron catalysis of fusion” but what does that actually mean?

    From an earlier article on NBF

    positron emission: ²²Na → ²²Ne + 1 e⁺ + 0.94 MeV of kinetic energy
    positron annihilation: e⁺ + matter → pion (5%) or kaon (95%)
    kaon decay: kaon → muon (80%) in 20 nsec
    muon capture: muon + D or T → mD or mT
    fusion (1): mD + T → ⁴He + ¹n + muon (non-consumed) (0.01 – 0.1 nsec)
    fusion (2): mT + D → ⁴He + ¹n + muon (non-consumed) (0.01 – 0.1 nsec)
    fusion (3): mD + D → ³He + ¹n + muon (non-consumed) (0.07 – 1.5 nsec)
    muon decay: muon + time → electron + neutrinos (2,200 nsec)
    So there you have it. Positrons react to form kaons or pions. They decay to form muons. Actual muons are involved in the fusion reactions.

    Reply
  72. Pull what thread? I watched the presentation, there’s not a word about muons or any way of producing muons. Lots of stuff about positrons though. You’re the one talking nonsense.

    Also he didn’t claim to have built a rocket engine. So far it’s just ideas and some small experiments.

    Reply
  73. Well I’m not speaking to your SPECIFIC complaint, but quite counter-intuitively; it’s actually simpler to get some fusion architectures working for a spacecraft engine than it is for a terrestrial reactor for various reasons. Generally, the fusion reaction may simply be providing you with an extremely energetic “working fluid” to use, you don’t necessarily need it to be a breakeven device, or even very efficient at all for it to still be better than any ion or Hall thruster in existence. For instance IEC fusion in jet mode is well suited to propulsion, whereas getting power generation from it – especially breakeven power generation – would be quite a bit harder.

    Reply

Leave a Comment