Hermes wrote: <https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4842-edmund-storms-q-a-on-the-nae/?postID=46656#post46656>
Good. Now how do you explain the observation of approximately circular hot spots where metal has melted? Hint: Jacques Ruer has shown that it takes at least tens of thousands of localized nuclear reactions to create a molten hot spot. I have seen these for myself. Is it unreasonable to assume that when a nanocrack gets hot enough it will melt the metal around it? And if the crack extends below the surface it might get hot enough to vapourise some of the surrounding metal and 'blow a bubble' - pretty much like those you seen in hot muddy pools in Yellowstone. Images - - The metallic hydrogen can survive the heat produced by the melted metal. The way this happens is connected to the structure of metallic hydrogen. The MH can produce and survive at least tens of thousands of localized nuclear reactions and still continue on. MH produces reactions at a distance. This was shown in the exploding wire experiments where uranium was fissioned in a separate chamber isolated from the exploding wire by a glass wall. Sounds like the MH produces muons, doesn't it? On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Thirty to forty years ago, *muon-induced fission* was a hot topic. > > Most of the radioactive heavy metal actinides were found to undergo prompt > or delayed fission when placed in a muon flux. This includes thorium. The > coupling is not huge but it is significant. > > However, at that time the economics of producing large numbers of muons > was prohibitive and the field of inquiry dried up. Here is an old paper. > > http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/ > _Public/12/609/12609441.pdf > > Muons were produced in a beam line for most of these studies. There is no > possibility of a self-sustaining chain reaction, as with neutron mediated > fission, although fission does produce some additional muons. Thus, a high > flux must be maintained. > > But... fast forward forty years to Holmlid, and reassess the situation ... > What if muons can be produced millions of time easier and cheaper, using > UDD and the Holmlid effect? > > If he is correct, a heavy flux of muons is produced via laser instead of > beam line, meaning that size can be reduced greatly and cost and form > factor minimized. When thorium is the target for muon induced fission, it > becomes useful without adding fissile material and it is far more plentiful > than uranium and the proliferation risk disappears as well as 90% of the > cost of dealing with neutrons and critical mass. > > Win, win, win, win. > > This is a paradigm shift in assumptions, leading to something unexpected. > "Small-scale fission courtesy of cold fusion." > > Even Holmlid has overlooked the possibility of muon-induced fission of > thorium (at least it does not turn up in a search of his papers. > > >
