The Other Kind of Cold Fusion

Cygnus_X-1

Nature clearly favours hot fusion no matter how cold the light. The cold glow in this image stems from a Blue Giant that is believed to orbit a black hole in the Cygnus X-1 system.

If you lived through the eighties there are certain things you could not miss, and since this is a science blog I am of course not referring to fashion aberrations, like mullets and shoulder pads, but rather to what is widely regarded as one of the most notorious science scandals to date: Fleischmann and Pons Cold Fusion, the claim of tapping the ultimate energy source within a simple electrochemical cell.

driver_license_photo

This blog's author's photo proves that he lived through the eighties. Since this driver's licence picture was taken the same year as the Fleischmann and Pons disaster, the half smile was all that I could muster.

For a short time it felt like humanity's prayers to deliver us from fossil fuel had been answered (at least to those who believe in that sort of thing). Of course, paying the ever increasing price at the gas pump is a constant (painful) reminder that this euphoric moment at the end of eighties was but a short lived aberration. But back then it felt so real. After all, there already existed a well-known process that allowed for nuclear fusion at room temperature, catalyzed by the enigmatic muons. One of the first scientific articles that I read in English was on that phenomenon, and it was published just a couple of years earlier. So initial speculations abounded, that maybe muons in the cosmic background radiation could somehow help trigger the reported reaction (although there was no explanation given as to how this low muon flux density could possibly accomplish this). While my fringe blog focuses on the intrepid researchers who, despite the enormous blow back, still work on Fleischman Pons-style research, this post is about the former, the oft forgotten muon-catalyzed fusion.

It is a beautiful nuclear reaction, highlighting one of the most basic peculiarities of quantum mechanics: Quantum Tunnelling and Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Both of these are direct consequences of the manifest wave properties of matter at this scale. The former allows matter to seep into what should be impenetrable barriers, and the latter describes how a bound point particle is always "smeared out" over a volume - as if points are an abstraction that nature abhors. Last but not least, it showcases the mysterious muon, a particle that seems to be identical to electrons in every way but the mass and stability (about 200 times more mass and a pretty long half life of about 2 μs). Because it behaves just like a heavier twin of the electron, it can substitute the latter in atoms and molecules.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the product of momentum (mass times velocity) and position 'certainty' has a lower bound. Usually the term uncertainty is simply interpreted probabilistically in terms of the deviation of the expectation value. But this view, while formally entirely correct, obstructs the very real physical implication of trying to squeeze a particle into a small space, because the momentum uncertainty then becomes a very real physical effect of quantum matter. The particle's velocity distribution will become ever broader, forcing the matter outwards and creating an orbital 'cloud' (e.g. specifically the spherical hydrogen s-orbital). There is really no good analogy in our everyday experience, they all sound silly: My version is that of a slippery soap in a spherical sink, the harder you try to grasp it the more powerful you send it flying. If you were to map all trajectories of the soap over time, you will find that on average it was anywhere in the sink with the probability decreasing towards the rim (that is unless you squeeze it so hard that it acquires enough speed to jump out of the sink - I guess that would be an analog to ionization). In the atomic and chemical realm, on the other hand, the very concept of a trajectory doesn't hold up (unless you are dealing with Rydberg atoms). You may as well think of electron orbitals as charge distributions (as this is exactly how they behave in the chemical domain).

Because the momentum rather then the velocity enters into the equation, the orbitals for a heavier version of the electron will be considerably smaller, i.e. about 2oo times smaller for the muon, as this is the factor by which the particle's velocity can be reduced in order to still get the same momentum. So muonic hydrogen is much smaller than the electron version. That's already all that is needed to get fusion going, because if two heavy hydrogen nucleons are bound in a muonic μH2 molecule they are far too close for comfort. Usually the repellent force of the electrostatic Coulomb potential should be enough to keep them apart, but the quantum tunnel effect allows them to penetrate the 'forbidden' region. And at this distance, the probability that both nucleons occupy the same space becomes large enough to get measurable incidents of nuclear fusion i.e. μH→ μHe.

The hydrogen used in the experimental realization is not the usual kind, but as with other fusion realizations, the heavier hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium are required, and since there is only one muon in the mix the d-t hydrogen is ionized. so that the equation looks more like this: (d-μ-t)+ → n + α (with the n indicating a fast neutron and the α a Helium-4 nucleus.)

The latter causes a lot of trouble as the muon 'sticks' to this alpha particle with a 1% chance (making it a muonic helium ion). If this happens, this muon is no longer available to catalyze more fusion events. This, in combination with the limited life time of the muons, and the 'set-up' required by the muons to bind to the hydrogen isotopes, is the limiting factor of this reaction.

Without a constant massive resupply of muons the reaction tempers off quickly. Despite decades of research this problem could never be surmounted. It takes pions to make muons, and the former are only produced in high energy particle collisions. This costs significantly more energy than the cold muon catalyzed fusion can recoup.

But there is one Australian company that claims that it has found a new, less costly way to make pions. They are certainly a very interesting 'cold fusion' start-up and at first glance seem far more credible than the outfits that my fringe blog covers. But on the other hand, this company treats their proprietary pion production process with a level of secrecy that is reminiscent of the worst players in the LENR world. I could not find any hint of how this process is supposed to work and why it supposedly can produce sufficient amounts of muons to make this commercially exploitable. (Pions could also be generated in two photon processes, but this would require even more input energy). So on second read the claims of Australian's Star Scientific don't really sound any less fantastic than the boasting of any other cold fusion outfit.

Any comments that could illuminate this mystery are more than welcome. Preliminary google searches on this company are certainly not encouraging.

This entry was posted in Popular Science, Quantum Mechanics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The Other Kind of Cold Fusion

  1. Alexvs says:

    Thank you Mr HD for your excellent article. Let me add that the Rydberg constant is calculated assuming infinite nucleus mass, an assumption acceptable for electrons but not for muons in whose case the value is much lower. We have calculated 1.156 eV. At low temperatures certain metal hydrides can provide shorter average distances between D atoms. Adding this effect to muonic atoms it could be a viable approach to D fusion.
    It is true that Star Scientific does not apport very much but apart from the secret pion source, what is written makes sense.

  2. Ivy Matt says:

    Regarding Star Scientific, a couple years ago I sent Mr. Horvath (the chairman) a number of questions about his company’s technology. That was while he was on his European tour. For the record, the questions I asked are as follows:

    Your Chief Scientist has been researching muon-catalyzed fusion since at least the 1970s according to his Web page. Your YouTube channel was created and your first blog post was made about a month ago. What has happened recently that has led Star Scientific to seek publicity for its research?

    What is the status of Star Scientific’s research?

    Is Star Scientific seeking funding for its research?

    Could you provide a brief explanation of how your pion production technology works?

    Has your pion production technology already achieved ratios of pions produced to energy used superior to those achieved by conventional particle accelerators? What is the energy cost per pion using your technology?

    Have you filed any patents on your pion production technology? Do you intend to file any patents in the near future on said technology?

    Have you found a way to increase the number of fusions per muon above that which has previously been obtained?

    Could your muon-catalyzed fusion technology be useful for the production of helium-3?

    Could it be useful for the breeding of tritium?

    Do you have any plans to collect the waste helium-4 for sale?

    I’m not sure I understand the answer in your FAQ to the question on tritium. Tritium is produced in roughly half of all D+D reactions, so what happens to it? Is it all used up in further D+T reactions and converted to helium-4 (and energetic neutrons)?

    Won’t the reactor vessel be affected by neutron activation? What materials do you plan to use for the reactor vessel, and how long will it remain radioactive after decommissioning?

    How close are you to being able to produce more energy from fusion than the input energy required to achieve it?

    How close are you to being able to develop a demonstration reactor that generates more electrical power than it draws from the grid?

    What would you estimate is the smallest size practical, using contemporary technology, for an electric generator based on your technology? About how much power would it produce?

    What is the nature of the spherical orange vessel that appears prominently in videos and photographs on your website?

    Do you have any important announcements that will be coming up in the near future?

    A bit nosy, I suppose, but I asked if Mr. Horvath was willing to answer all or some of the questions. I received the following response, sent from Mr. Horvath’s e-mail address:

    Thank you for your enquiry and questions. Mr Horvath is currently travelling overseas, however on his return we will ensure he receives your email and responds accordingly.

    To date that is the only response I have received from that address.

  3. Ed says:

    If you could phone me, I can give you some more information about what this article is about, information that you might be able to use toward some answers to your questions.

    • Ed says:

      Oops! You have my email address in confidence, from when I subscribed to your blog. I’ll give you my phone number if you would like to email me at that address. I look forward to hearing from you.