Robin— You note: "Runaway" not possible, because the fuel isn't fissile anyway. You also say: 14 MeV neutrons are more than fast enough to fission Th (or any Actinide for that matter, including U238) directly without conversion to a fissile isotope.
These two comments seem to contradict each other. Why can’t the 14 Mev neutrons cause a “Runaway”? Bob Cook From: Axil Axil Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 7:59 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Could the future that started out as cold fusion be ... tada... thorium fission ? This is a very good idea. It will shield muon release and optimize energy production through fission which will yield 200 MeV per fission. A liquid molten salt blanket will allow easy extraction of heat using a molten salt to CO2 heat exchanger. A few corrections No laser => no proton decay => no muons => no fission. On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:33 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:31:15 -0800: Hi, You would get a far greater yield from your muons, if you use muon catalyzed T-D fusion to create 14 MeV neutrons that directly fission a Thorium blanket. This is because each muon can catalyze about 100 fusion reactions, which means about 100 fast neutrons per muon. 14 MeV neutrons are more than fast enough to fission Th (or any Actinide for that matter, including U238) directly without conversion to a fissile isotope. (See nuclear weapon design). Furthermore a few of those fission reactions will also create neutrons fast enough to fission other nuclei. Just build a cylindrical blanket of thorium with a D-T mix along the axis. Then Or in Holmlid's case, fire a laser beam along the axis. The thermal output of the reactor is easily regulated by controlling the pulse frequency of the laser. No laser => no fusion => no neutrons => no fission. "Runaway" not possible, because the fuel isn't fissile anyway. >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. > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
