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).
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
But the catalytic rate isn’t as good as necessary. There is the “sticking” problem. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion
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
esnesnon
Presentation on this rocket starts at 1:25:30 in the video.
Care to elaborate about what you find nonsensical?
esnesnon
Presentation on this rocket starts at 1:25:30 in the video.
Care to elaborate about what you find nonsensical?
Actually, muon induced fusion HAS been demonstrated. It just takes too much energy to generate the muons to reach breakeven.
This uses positrons, not muons.
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.
Actually muon induced fusion HAS been demonstrated. It just takes too much energy to generate the muons to reach breakeven.
This uses positrons not muons.
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.”””
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”””””””
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.
Can you or someone else decipher the Feynman diagrams in the slides here, and compare to this?
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.
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.
Can you or someone else decipher the Feynman diagrams in the slides here and compare to this?
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.
+1 for wineskins
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.
Moderating them SLOWS them down and reduces their energy. I think its a fraud.
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.
Ah, interesting. I was wondering how positrons could promote fusion reactions. Thanks, and apologies to Scaryjello.
+1 for wineskins
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.
Moderating them SLOWS them down and reduces their energy.I think its a fraud.
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.
Ah interesting. I was wondering how positrons could promote fusion reactions. Thanks and apologies to Scaryjello.
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.
Its a well known and demonstrated scientific phenomenon. Find “muonic fusion ” on google scholar
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.
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.
Its a well known and demonstrated scientific phenomenon.Find muonic fusion “” on google scholar”””
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.
I think there’s a big baloney factor involved.
Can you use old wineskins for aging spirits or beer, the way we use old wine barrels?
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.
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.
You’re absolutely correct.
I think there’s a big baloney factor involved.
Can you use old wineskins for aging spirits or beer the way we use old wine barrels?
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.
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.
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!
You’re absolutely correct.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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!
You’re absolutely correct.
You’re absolutely correct.
I think there’s a big baloney factor involved.
I think there’s a big baloney factor involved.
Can you use old wineskins for aging spirits or beer, the way we use old wine barrels?
Can you use old wineskins for aging spirits or beer the way we use old wine barrels?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Its a well known and demonstrated scientific phenomenon. Find “muonic fusion ” on google scholar
Its a well known and demonstrated scientific phenomenon.Find muonic fusion “” on google scholar”””
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.
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.
+1 for wineskins
+1 for wineskins
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.
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.
Moderating them SLOWS them down and reduces their energy. I think its a fraud.
Moderating them SLOWS them down and reduces their energy.I think its a fraud.
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.
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.
Ah, interesting. I was wondering how positrons could promote fusion reactions. Thanks, and apologies to Scaryjello.
Ah interesting. I was wondering how positrons could promote fusion reactions. Thanks and apologies to Scaryjello.
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!
You’re absolutely correct.
I think there’s a big baloney factor involved.
Can you use old wineskins for aging spirits or beer, the way we use old wine barrels?
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.
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.
Can you or someone else decipher the Feynman diagrams in the slides here, and compare to this?
Can you or someone else decipher the Feynman diagrams in the slides here and compare to this?
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.
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.
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.
Its a well known and demonstrated scientific phenomenon.
Find “muonic fusion ” on google scholar
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.
+1 for wineskins
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”””””””
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.
Moderating them SLOWS them down and reduces their energy.
I think its a fraud.
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.
Ah, interesting. I was wondering how positrons could promote fusion reactions. Thanks, and apologies to Scaryjello.
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.
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.
Actually, muon induced fusion HAS been demonstrated. It just takes too much energy to generate the muons to reach breakeven.
Actually muon induced fusion HAS been demonstrated. It just takes too much energy to generate the muons to reach breakeven.
Can you or someone else decipher the Feynman diagrams in the slides here, and compare to this?
This uses positrons, not muons.
This uses positrons not muons.
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.
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.”””
Presentation on this rocket starts at 1:25:30 in the video.
Presentation on this rocket starts at 1:25:30 in the video.
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.
Care to elaborate about what you find nonsensical?
Care to elaborate about what you find nonsensical?
esnesnon
esnesnon
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, muon induced fusion HAS been demonstrated. It just takes too much energy to generate the muons to reach breakeven.
This uses positrons, not muons.
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.
Presentation on this rocket starts at 1:25:30 in the video.
Care to elaborate about what you find nonsensical?
esnesnon