See Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua-ions
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf SPP produces mesons that induce thorium fission. On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:05 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Jones— > > > > What isotope of thorium is it that you believe could replace U as a target > for energy production? > > > > I do not think there are any naturally occurring Th isotopes that > fission. The closest reaction is a thorium-232 transmutation by a > thermal neutron to U-233, which does fission. > > > > In the late 1960’s, early 1970’s Naval Reactors demonstrated a > Th-232---U-233 light water breeder reactor that produced more U-233 than it > started with and worked as predicted. The demonstration was the last > reactor to run in the Shipping Port Nuclear Facility producing electricity > for the grid. > > > > Some of the odd numbered Th isotopes have a fission cross sections, but > they are all radioactive. > > > > Bob Cook > > > > *From: *Jones Beene <[email protected]> > *Sent: *Wednesday, January 25, 2017 1:48 PM > *To: *[email protected] > *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Could the future that started out as cold fusion be > ... tada... thorium fission ? > > > > Axil Axil wrote: > > The text covered by the picture as follows: > > > > ,,, metallic hydrogen 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. > > > I missed the citation for this? However, it does sound very much like what > I am suggesting but using thorium instead of uranium as the target of muon > production. > > The beauty of muon-induced fusion is that you do not need to be concerned > about critical mass and hunreds of tons of reactant, lots of moderators and > an optimal neutron economy etc - all of which require a large form factor > > In fact, with muon induced fission, the thorium fuel can actually be mixed > with boron to immediately convert free neutrons into energy before thorium > can absorb them. We want to avoid any proliferation risk. Smaller would be > better. > > Of course, LENR is preferable since it promises small devices with no > radioactivity at all, but that may not materialize as quickly as a larger > form factor, which is intermediate between grid power and home power. The > requirement for gamma shielding is still there .... with any kind of > fission or hot fusion, but one can imagine many applications for > medium-sized power plants and large vehicles which can accommodate adequate > shielding - locomotives, earth movers and boats. This could happen years or > decades sooner with thorium fission than LENR can be perfected and > introduced. > > Let's face it - there is no operational LENR today, nothing even close > thanks to Rossigate -- and yet we had operational thorium reactors in 1965 > (the MSRE at Oak Ridge) but that design was doomed from the start (by > needing enough fissile inventory to make a bomb, which is the main thing > that muon-induced fission avoids). > > I think there is a place for this technology - assuming of course that > Holmlid is correct. > > >
