To summarize the present LENR situation, if Leif Holmlid’s work is accurate:
The important specific detail which is easy to overlook, since many groups have
pursued muon catalyzed fusion “MCF” for decades, is that now in 2015, there
appears to be two basic varieties of MCF – the old version requiring high
energy input and the new version which is more robust - and is a low energy
process
Let’s call them
1) MCF/h … which can be triggered by an accelerator beam which produces
muons, or by cosmic ray muons
2) MCF/c … which can be triggered by muons which are produced in situ by
the dynamics of the reaction itself and thus involves positive feedback and a
limited chain reaction with little gamma or neutron radiation.
This mirrors nuclear fusion itself, where there is hot fusion and cold fusion.
All of the companies in the MCF field, and most of the R&D prior to Holmlid,
was pursuing MCF/h. The economics for MCF/h appear to be hopelessly expensive,
due to the need for a beam-line to produce muons.
Notably, the second version MCF/c requires dense deuterium the first does not.
This appears to be an absolute requirement. No dense deuterium, no MCF/c.
An accelerator is not needed if a population of dense deuterium is present.
Typically an alkali metal is require to produce dense deuterium – like lithium
or potassium, as well as a ferromagnetic electrode, like nickel or iron.
However, dense deuterium is not enough for fusion, and the MCF/c requires a
light source, which can be in the visible or IR range - and preferentially this
is a coherent light source. It can be a low-powered laser for instance.
Finally, there could be one or more versions of cold fusion which do not
require dense deuterium, and do not involve muons. Since muon detection is
highly specialized and was never implemented in the first 25 years of LENR, it
is impossible to say if the early experiments inadvertently produced dense
deuterium or not. Since the early experiments did not produce very much gamma
or neutron radiation, it is tempting to opine that this implies they were
operating in the MCF/c range, and were producing dense deuterium and undetected
muons. Early cold fusion work was difficult to replicate. This could indicate
that an unknown parameter was present and not always being met. For MCF/c, that
parameter could have been a proper light source.
From: Eric Walker
* Can you elaborate on research showing that muon-catalyzed fusion lacks
neutrons and gammas? In my reading today I got the distinct impression that
there were and were expected to be fast neutrons and gammas in MFC.
It is more complicated than that, Eric. Holmlid has been publishing his results
for at least 6 years and AFAIK he reports few neutrons or gammas. But yes –
there are others who have reported them. The answer for why there is a
difference could be in the density of the deuterium (prior activation).
With the original MCF which is based on cosmic muons, which is to say NO
densification of deuterium – we have typical hot fusion ash including neutrons
and gammas. Fortunately, this is not economically feasible because no muons are
produced to replace the cosmic muons.
However, with deuterium densification, Holmlid seems to suggest muons form as a
replacement for gammas – and which then go on to catalyze the next round. This
is massive synergy.
Do you interpret this differently?
