Temporary Bose-Einstein Condensate Theory

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno - and possibly his most overlooked paper Jones Beene Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:53:05 -0700

Here is a suggestion for Norront Fusion (Holmlid licensee) ... Their website indicates they have three Holmlid-effect muon generators operating at the moment. Suggestion: Hybrid Holmlid/Mizuno device for generating neutrons. Place a magnetized Mizuno device in the output path of a Holmlid muon generator. Typically every muon catalyzes ahundred or so D+D fusions. A small muon output is thereby multiplied.

That is such a major improvement that physicists would be impressed to the extent that massive financial support would be shifted from ITER and other wasteful programs towards a fusion device with an actual commercial future. There is no possible good outcome for ITER in the next 30 years, whereas a Holmlid/Mizuno type device could be ready in 30 days. (if you already have the small muon generator). Jones

------- One interesting possibility arises from the experiment due to the factthat there is no fusion without a relatively strong magnetic field nor without very cold (but not liquid) deuterium gas in that strong field.

That intersection of two critical restrictions implies that a "temporary BEC" may exist under conditions where a full BEC is not seen. TheBEC assembles a dense target for muon interaction, on occasion.

IOW there is recurrent boson condensation but on a transient basis. Only in the condensed state will fusion occur. And only a small population of deuterons is every in that transient BEC state.

This was never considered, and no group pursued the finding further- probably because only a few muons from cosmic rays are available; and at the time there was no cheap and low energy way to produce muons. That may have changed ---------------------------------------

The knock on cold fusion over the years has been lack of neutrons. Yet that "lack" is not accurate.

As it turns out, 15 years ago Mizuno and others performed a defining experiment. Problem is... almost nobody quotes it today, or even knows about it. "Neutron emission from D2 gas in magnetic fields under low temperature" is the paper from 2004. Mizuno, Akimoto, Takahashi and Francesco Celani

"We observed neutron emissions from pure deuterium gas after it was cooled in liquid nitrogen and placed in a magnetic field. Neutron emissions were observed in ten out of ten test cases. Neutron burst ... were 1000 times higher than the background counts....We observed a clear neutron energy peak at 2.5MeV." (indicates d-d nuclear fusion)

Comment: why is this study not given the credit it deserves? The authors are top notch. The results are astounding. The experiment was partially replicated by Ahern at MIT.

The neutron bursts align with cosmic ray bursts (which create muons which then catalyze fusion).

The solenoid magnetic field of .8 T is large, but could be obtained using permanent magnets. This experiment begs to be replicated today using permanent magnets and a tiny muon source using laser irradiation.

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno - and possibly his most overlooked paper Brian Ahern Tue, 12 Mar 2019 05:25:24 -0700

I think Jones is on the correct path. You need greater than 0.8 Tesla to get the effect.

________________________________ From: mix...@bigpond.com Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 11:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno - and possibly his most overlooked paper

In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 11 Mar 2019 20:52:43 +0000 (UTC): Hi Jones,

Followup Data

Muon Catalyzed Fission AND Fusion

Re: [Vo]:"muon catalyzed fission" Jones Beene Mon, 26 Apr 2021 06:13:09 -0700

Robin wrote:

*** Assuming a radius of 10 fm for the nucleus of a Uranium atom, to which a negative muon would be attracted, and thus gain kinetic energy, coming from "infinitely" far away, the muon would gain about 13 MeV of kinetic energy. That's more than enough to fission even U238 (or any actinide for that matter) directly.

Which means thorium is in play... (India has a lot of thorium and could be an early adopter)

*** So whether the muons are created by a proton beam or from UDH probably wouldn't make any difference. This would result in complete "burn up" of Uranium in the reactor, leaving no long lived actinide waste. Yes, the argument could be made that muon catalyzed fission despite the name - is in fact, cleaner than fusion. So the bottom line is still the same: "does the Holmlid effect, and/or the Norront implementation of same, really produce a flux of ultra cheap muons ? ... as is the claim. Norront is pursuing muon catalyzed fusion (which is probably NOT the best utilization of muons, given the high cost of heavy water) but it is not too late to change horses.

Putting all the details in perspective - both scientific and economic - India see,s like the perfect place to implement a muon catalyzed thorium fission reactor. What is the downside, other than to the purveyors of traditional fission of enriched U?

Let's hope India can first survive the pandemic... and second that Bill Gates or another benefactor gets wind of this...

The Cold Fusion/LENR Ping List

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles

Keywords: ColdFusion; LENR; lanr; CMNS
chat—science

—

http://lenr-canr.org/

Vortex-L
http://tinyurl.com/pxtqx3y

Best book to get started on this subject:
EXCESS HEAT
Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed by Charles Beaudette

https://www.abebooks.com/9780967854809/Excess-Heat-Why-Cold-Fusion-0967854806/plp

Updated No Internal Trolling Rules for FR per Jim Robinson

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3928396/posts

If someone says stop, then stop. Do not enter onto a thread on a topic you don’t like just to disrupt, rattle cages, poke sticks, insult the regulars, or engage in trolling activities, etc.

The issue isn’t whether we allow skepticism, it is whether we allow hyperskeptics and skeptopaths to ruin the scientific dialog. Such FReepers as Moonman62, TexasGator, CodeToad, Fireman15 and others who persist in polluting these threads have been asked to leave, and we are asking that they open their own threads if they have comments.

That’s why NASA is looking at it. Radwaste isn’t a human contamination problem in space.

https://www.fulviofrisone.com/attachments/article/469/VOL%2029..pdf
pages 105-118

Space Application of the GeNIE HybridTM
Fusion–Fission Generator

Lawrence P. Forsley∗
and Pamela A. Mosier-Boss
Global Energy Corporation, San Diego, CA 92123, USA

∗Corresponding author. E-mail: lawrence.p.forsley@nasa.gov.

Abstract
JWK Corporation and Global Energy Corporation (GEC) have spent the past two decades understanding and applying nuclear reactions in condensed matter with the US Navy and NASA. The Navy cooperation resulted in US Patent, 8,419,919, System and Method for Generating Particles.

The use of this patent to fission uranium is described in a companion paper, Uranium Fission
Using Pd/D Co-deposition.

GEC is applying this technology as a non-fissile reactor core suitable for deep-space power under its second NASA Space Act Agreement. This paper discusses the need for space-based nuclear power, the alternatives, the hybrid fusion-fast-reactor and the spaceflight readiness testing facilities.
⃝

Keywords: Fast fission, Fusion, LANR, NASA, Space power

1. Overview
NASA has used solar power for 50 years and nuclear power beginning three years later. Solar powered spacecraft are generally limited to the inner Solar System out to Mars, with the exception of the 60 foot solar panel span of the JUNO
Jupiter orbiter. Other than the US SNAP-10 fission reactor, each of nearly 40 missions, including New Horizons to
Pluto, were powered by plutonium (238Pu) radioactive thermoelectric generators (RTG). Although run for decades as
seen with the now 41 years extended missions of the two Voyager spacecraft, RTGs provide less than 1 kW of electrical
power (kWe). Meanwhile the Soviets flew 31 fission reactors in low-earth orbit (LEO) each producing up to 10 kWe.
Unfortunately, the Kosmos-954 satellite came down over Northern Canada in 1978 and contaminated 124,000 km2 of
territory. Hence, there’s reluctance to fly fissile material and non-fissile RTGs as used on the Jupiter Galileo, Saturn
Cassini, Pluto New Horizons and Mars Curiosity spacecraft as well as the earlier Voyager and Pioneer Missions

More on the hybrid fusion/fission reactor...

5.1. Hybrid reactor
GEC is developing a space-rated, hybrid, fusion-fast-fission, thorium reactor. This has different, and in some ways
more stringent, requirements than a terrestrial reactor. For example, it needs a mean-time-to failure exceeding 50,000 h
(5.7 years), to enable most missions of interest, as repair is usually impossible [21]. Initially, it will be mated to the
NASA Glenn Advanced Stirling Engine that is used with the KRUSTY reactor. This sets specific mass, volume and
temperature requirements.
Like KRUSTY, the goal has been to move in steps from tens of watts to tens of kilowatts. The first Kilopower
Program demonstration, DUFF, produced 24 We using a Stirling Engine with a heat pipe. These Stirling engines have
a conversion efficiency of 10–30% thermal to electric depending upon the temperature difference, ∆T, between the
operating temperature and the heat dump. Despite space being cold it is also a well-insulating vacuum.
The Hybrid Reactor upper temperature limit is controlled by materials. But, this has an upside. For example, the
hydrided enriched uranium metal fuel rods used in General Atomic TRIGA thermal fission reactors are self-moderating
with a rapid, negative temperature co-efficient. TRIGA reactors are considered inherently safe.
5.2. 238U and 232Th fission cross-sections
The following figures show the neutron [22] and proton [23] actinide fission cross-sections in barns (1 b=10−24 cm2
)
and incident particle kinetic energy in meV (10−3
eV) to MeV (106
eV) units. Colored arrows indicate neutron
and proton kinetic energies observed in condensed matter reactions estimating scattering losses through both the co-deposition layer and electrolyte between the active surface and the CR-39. Note that both the log energy and crosssection scales vary by figure. Neutral neutron interactions have a higher cross-section than charged protons due to the
lack of a Coulomb Barrier. But, fast protons will fission actinides. What is not shown are competing reactions like
capture and spallation reactions (n,n′
), (n,2n), (n,p), (p,n), etc. These reactions create excited nuclei that do not directly
fission.
Sustained thermal neutron fission requires >3%b of odd-numbered actinides, like 233U, 235U, and 239Pu that have
high thermal neutron (0.025 eV) fission cross-sections, σt, of 500–600 b. Most fission reactors use water or graphite
to moderate, or thermalize and slow, the 1+ MeV fission neutrons to thermal energy. A fast fission reactor uses
unmoderated neutrons but requires nearly 20% enrichment of the odd-numbered, fissile nuclei since the fast neutron
fission cross-section, σf drops to ≈1 b. Fast and thermal reactors can convert, or breed, even numbered (fertile) nuclei
into odd-numbered (fissile) nuclei by neutron capture. Both reactors depend upon a neutron chain reaction producing
>2 neutrons/fission. Reactor criticality is maintained by a neutron economy controlling how many neutrons escape
(geometry) are captured (fission poisons, control rods and breeding fissile fuel) or are delayed (fission product neutron
decay).

5.3. Fusion fast fission reactions
By comparison, our Hybrid reactor is sub-critical relying upon neither fissile fuel nor a fissile chain reaction. It is a fast
reactor, fissioning both fissile and fertile nuclei. The fusion-fast-fission reactor is based upon previous work described
in “Investigation of Nano-nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter: Final Report” [24] and discussed in, “Uranium
Fission Using Pd/D Co-deposition” [25]. As noted, fast neutron energies of 6.3–6.83 MeV have been measured with
average fluxes exceeding 106 n/s. The instantaneous flux exceeded this rate.
Figure 10 shows the DT Fusion-Fast-Fission reaction. DD fusion-fast-fission is similar. Both primary and secondary fusion and induced fast fission reactions were generated using the patented protocol [24].
Combining the most probable primary and secondary fusion reactions result in ≈8 MeV kinetic energy in fast
proton, helium and alpha particles with ≈16 MeV as neutron kinetic energy. By comparison, actinide fission produces
≈170 MeV in charged fission fragments and ≈30 MeV in gamma and neutron kinetic energies with ≈ 3 × 1010
fissions/watt-thermal Although the fusion neutron energy drives the fission reactions the overriding thermal power is
from fission products.
The NASA version of the Hybrid fusion-fast-fission reactor will be tested in a series of stages analyzing neutron
flux, stability and pressurized gain with high temperature aqueous operation at <150◦C and <4 bar pressure. Low
energy X-ray, γ and visible light diagnostics require a 250 ml glass pressure vessel (Fig. 12). Higher temperatures,
pressures and volumes require Hastelloy and stainless steel vessels. The reactor is housed in a calorimeter (Fig. 11) that
was recently calibrated to 200 mW or better sensitivity with an ≈ 40 W upper limit. All of the materials, containment
vessels and previous operating procedures have been subject to NASA GRC and Plum Brook Health Physics and
Safety reviews as will modified experiment protocols.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.