Wasn't there a problem with "sticking"? Each muon wasted to much of its short life hanging around after completing each reaction?
Steve Jones was the expert on this. Wonder if he's still around lurking? Best regards Gary On Sat, 24 Apr 2021, 13:18 Jones Beene, <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > This is not a typo - in fact muons can catalyze fission as well as fusion. > > Holmlid devotees should take notice of this opportunity. > > Decades ago, government Labs were looking at accelerator driven fission > using massive beam lines and un-enriched fuel, but this turned out to be > economically nonviable due to the high cost of the beam line. > > The big advantage however is that the scheme allows the complete burnup > of waste and the breeding of fissile material so that if (BIG IF) one can > avoid the > massive expense of the beam line (which costs twice as much as the reactor > itself) > then there could be a huge economic benefit in a new approach. > > Having a subcritical reactor also cuts that hardware cost by 75% over what > we now > are stuck with - which is,in effect a "controlled bomb" poised on the edge > of > catastrophe. > > Thus - if one can provide a cheap source of muons without the beam line - > such as > via the Holmlid effect, then this route could be highly preferable to muon > catalyzed > fusion - both in cost and and in eliminating waste. > > If this idea has not been patented, then let me now dedicate it to the > public domain. >
