You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
This topic is inspired by a discovery of research reported by Calliban...
From Google:
1936
The muon was discovered as a constituent of cosmic-ray particle “showers” in 1936 by the American physicists Carl D. Anderson and Seth Neddermeyer.Apr 3, 2024Muon | Elementary particle, Lepton, Weak interaction | Britannica
Britannica
https://www.britannica.com › ... › Physics › Physicists
About featured snippets
•
Feedback
What I vaguely remember from a class on physics is that the lifetime of muons from cosmic ray collisions is that the particles are short lived, but their lifetime is extended by the Einstein space-time effect ... time is slowed for the particles when they are traveling near the speed of light, so they survive long enough to be seen by astronomers on the surface of the Earth. More muons were seen (as i remember) the higher on a mountain the researchers went.
In any case, this topic is offered for NewMars members to report and comment upon research about Muons, or applications of Muons for fusion, or any other practical use.
Update 2026/09/26 ... the Wikipedia article on Muons includes history as well as scientific data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
This post is reserved for an index to posts that may be contributed by NewMars members over time.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
The post quoted below is the inspiration for this new topic ... it appears (as I understand the report) that muons may be able to help to solve the (very large) problem of fusion to produce more power than it consumes. In addition (again as I understand the report) it appears that the discovery reported in the linked article offers a way to create tritium, which is a valuable material for energy storage, as well as for fusion.
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 35#p223035
This article will have gone largely unnoticed in the energy community, but could have revolutionary implications for the future development of nuclear power.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 … 655/abfb4b
Whilst muon catalysed fusion is unlikely to produce a new energy source on its own, it could provide an energy efficient source of high energy neutrons. The 14MeV neutrons produced by D-T fusion will fast-fission any actinide nucleus, including depleted uranium, which Britain, France and the US have in enormous abundance thanks to 80 years of uranium enrichment for weapons and nuclear reactor programmes. Using muon catalysed fusion as a neutron source, would allow the construction of travelling wave reactors, using natural or depleted uranium as fuel, obviating the need for enrichment or fuel reprocessing. This dramatically simplifies the nuclear fuel cycle.
Up until now, fusion-fission hybrids have been discussed theoretically, but fusion has been too technically challenging to deploy as a neutron source in a hybrid reactor. But if the conclusion of this article is to be believed and muon catalysed fusion can at least break even in its stand alone energy gain, then it could provide an efficient source of neutrons driving a travelling wave fission reactor.
I would wager that the Russians and Chinese will have more adptitude developing this technology than any western country. In the western world, political activism has made new nuclear development slow and expensive. That needs to change if are to find a practical replacement for the cheap energy that once was provided by fossil fuels.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
I'm not going to say I understand this stuff, that's for people who perhaps worked in that industry or have done studies atomic nuclei and their interactions, in addition to the study of other forms of energy matter interactions. However I do read a lot of energy stuff on the internet,
with Fusion a muon number problem to be solved? I have heard or read or watched video on Meson-catalyzed fusion, muon-catalyzed fusion in ultradense plasma substances, similar to electrons but much more massive and unstable and causing fusion in Liquid Hydrogen? it can be a catalyst for reactions but a lot of energy is consumed to make it so a cheaper source might be found, in space? maybe the reason for cold investment or slowing matter down, something to contain it and have it live longer 2 microseconds.
Cold fusion is more of the realm of scifi, the hypothesized type of nuclear reaction that could occur at, or near, room temperatures. In observation the muon causes deuterium nuclei to be 207 times closer than ordinary gas. There are real people working on this but there is also a lot of 'controversy' Peter L. Hagelstein, between 1989 and 2004, the field became discredited in the eyes of many scientists
People have put careers at risk going down this path of study
'Heating up a cold theory'
https://web.archive.org/web/20040804100 … ld_theory/
MIT professor risks career to reenergize discredited
Virtually all of Hagelstein's problems stem from his study of cold fusion, a type of nuclear reaction that -- if it exists at all -- might have the power to create unlimited, clean energy, essentially on a tabletop. Fifteen years ago, two University of Utah chemists claimed they created such a reaction, an announcement quickly denounced as quackery. Today, cold fusion is as scientifically scorned as UFOs
As I have read or seen in videos stuff that is made at Fermilab or the LHC is also made in outer space, Muons are produced naturally in space in cosmic events
Some radical ideas and fringe groups were accepted as part of the mainstream science SRI International an American nonprofit scientific research institute in Menlo Park, California. Maybe people want to see real results and money, spin-off tech and patent applications. Michael McKubre from New Zealand electrochemist involved with cold fusion energy research, however there have been accidents, a worker scientist killed and experiments after were done behind bulletproof glass, he works with Nuclear Physics scientists in the USA, Japan and Italy.
A British site, the STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire
'Our mission is for neutrons and muons to advance knowledge and improve lives.'
https://www.isis.stfc.ac.uk/Pages/About.aspx
High Yield Muon Catalyzed Fusion & Muonium
https://indico.jlab.org/event/722/contributions/14061/
Muon-Catalyzed Fusion (paywall)
https://www.annualreviews.org/content/j … 189.001523
Future of Experimental Muon Physics
https://www.mdpi.com/2673-9984/8/1/3
A Safer, Smaller, Cleaner Subcritical Thorium Fission—Muonic Fusion Hybrid Reactor
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 … 23.2204996
Until the pure fusion ages come true, present nuclear power is a crucial option if humanity takes aim for a zero net carbon society by the 2050s. A thorium subcritical reactor activated and controlled by muon-catalyzed fusion (MuCF) is an alternative until the completion of the pure fusion reactors. This proposal consists of two main technologies: a steady-state MuCF and the thorium subcritical fission reactor with cascaded neutron multipliers. It will be an environmentally friendly quantum energy source built only by the present science and technologies in a few decades.
Muon Catalyzed Fusion: Introduction, progress toward high-density yield measurements, and application prospects
https://www.psfc.mit.edu/events/2023/mu … ements-and
Abstract: When a muon stops in a mixture of hydrogen isotopes, it can catalyze nuclear fusion reactions at temperatures well below those required for plasma fusion. In dense deuterium-tritium mixtures, the effect is rapid compared to the muon lifetime, and a single muon can catalyze more than 100 fusion reactions. The number of fusion reactions per muon is limited by the muon lifetime and by sticking to charged fusion products.
Our collaboration is working to measure the kinetics and yield of muon-catalyzed fusion at higher temperatures and pressures than have been reached previously. (7 - 1500 K, 0 - 5 GPa) We will use a diamond anvil cell to compress and heat a millimeter-sized volume of liquified hydrogen isotopes. Scintillation counters will register incoming muons from the beamline, outgoing neutrons from the fusion, and outgoing electrons from muon decay. We will compute the cycling rate and sticking fraction for each set of experimental conditions.
In this talk, I will give an overview of muon-catalyzed fusion, describe the aims of our experiment, describe our detector and target systems, show results-to-date from our ongoing experimental campaign at PSI, and discuss plans for upcoming data collection runs. I will also discuss potential commercial applications of muon-catalyzed fusion and give bounds on the energy cost per muon and fusion yield required for electrical power production. This work is supported by ARPA-E, Fermilab, PSI, and NK Labs.
Offline
Like button can go here
Muon catalysed fusion (MCF) is a well documented phenomena and has been reproduced many times. It is a different phenomena to the claimed LENR reactions occuring in deuterated metal lattices. So it is not Cold Fusion, although it does fit the name as it takes place in room temperature or cryogenic hydrogen.
It would be difficult to produce a functional fusion powerplant using MCF because of muons have a finite halflife of 2 microseconds and tend to stick to alpha particles after an average of 100 - 350 fusions events. This removes them from the fusion process. Producing muons is energy intensive as it requires accelerating protons into a target at energies of 100s MeV. What this means in practice is that the quantity of energy needed to drive muon production will usually exceed the amount released by fusion. This study suggests that it may be possible to build a MCF system that marginally exceeds break even, producing 14% more energy from fusion than is needed to sustain it.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 … 655/abfb4b
This still would not be sufficient for a practical standalone MCF powerplant, because the capital cost of a system achieving such a slim energy gain woukd be unaffordable.
But what I suggested in the other thread and MB4M has referenced above, is using MCF as a compact neutron source driving nuclear fission. D-T fusion produces 14MeV neutrons. These neutrons are so energetic, that they will fast-fission just about any actinide nucleus, including 232Th, 238U and other transuranic waste elements, without the need for breeding relying on nuclear transmutation. When a nucleus is fissioned using a neutron of such high energy, it will release several additional neutrons, which may cause secondary fission events or may transmute 232Th into 233U or 238U into 239Pu. So ultimately each fusion event releasing 17MeV of energy, could cause several fission events into a uranium or thorium blanket. Each fission event releases 200MeV of energy. Even if the fusion neutron source never reaches breakeven, the neutrons it releases can drive nuclear fission reactions that produce plenty of excess energy.
The fact that MCF should be able to reach breakeven (though not greatly surpass it), makes it a good candidate for a driving neutron source, because it is technically much easier to build than a tokamak or ICF machine. Laser wakefield generators are being developed which should allow construction of very compact particle accelerators for a fraction of the cost of the magnetic accelerators presently in use. So MCF could be made compact with a relatively low capital cost. It allows us to build nuclear reactors that can use depleted uranium enrichment tailings as fuel. Unlike conventional breeder reactor designs, we don't have problems with doubling time. In a sodium cooled FBR, it can easily take 30 years to produce enough excess plutonium fuel to feed an additional fast reactor. But that isn't an issue for a fusion driven hybrid, because 14MeV neutrons will fast-fission 238U. So there are no limits to the rate of capacity expansion.
A fusion driven hybrid also simplifies the fuel cycle, as we don't need enrichment or reprocessing for this to work. We put DU metal fuel rods into the blanket of the reactor, irradiate them until about 10% of atoms have fissioned and then replace them with fresh DU. If we do have reprocessing, then the spent fuel from a hybrid reactor can be used to provide fuel for downstream conventional fission reactors. Hence a single 1GWe hybrid, could produce enough fissile plutonium in spent fuel to fuel several 1GWe boiling water reactors in a closed fuel cycle. In addition to producing power, a hybrid functions as a nuclear fuel factory.
Last edited by Calliban (2024-05-16 03:48:38)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Like button can go here
For Calliban re Muons ...
I gave Gemini copies of your post from 2024 about Muons and your recent post in the Orion topic. Here is it's replay:
Evaluation of the Muon-Driven Hybrid Micro-Pellet Drive
Your forum member has put forward a remarkably creative and detailed proposal. By blending muon-catalyzed fusion (MCF), inertial confinement fusion (ICF), and a micro-fission "spark plug" core, this concept reads very much like hard science fiction—specifically aiming for that elusive "Epstein Drive" archetype of high thrust, high ISP, and clean operation.
Here is an evaluation of the physics, mechanics, and challenges presented in the post:
1. The Core Mechanics and Physics
Fission Fragment Range: The member's calculation regarding fragment range is solid. Fission fragments (such as those from uranium or plutonium fission) typically travel about 10 micrometers (0.01 mm) in dense fuel. Keeping the central fissile core under 0.01 mm ensures that the ~80 MeV fragments can escape the core and deposit their kinetic energy directly into the surrounding fusion fuel (like LiD or D-T).
The Spark Plug Mechanism: Using high-energy fission fragments to rapidly heat surrounding fusion fuel to the keV temperature range is a clever way to bypass the massive external laser/driver requirements of traditional ICF. If energy transfer is efficient, it could indeed trigger a localized detonation wave.
Mass Ratios: Using a tiny fraction of heavy metal (1 part in 100,000) keeps the bulk of the pellet mass as lighter fusion fuel, preserving the high specific impulse (ISP) advantage over pure fission systems.
2. The Muon Catalyst Challenge
Energy Overhead: While muons effectively catalyze fusion at lower thermal temperatures by binding hydrogen nuclei closer together, producing them requires high-energy particle accelerators operating in the hundreds of MeV range. Keeping the overall propulsion system net-positive while continuously generating and injecting muons remains a severe engineering bottleneck.
Muon Sticking: As noted in the background post, muons tend to "stick" to alpha particles after roughly 100 to 350 cycles, removing them from the catalytic loop. For a rapid-fire pulse drive, replacing or freeing these muons at high repetition rates adds immense system complexity.
3. The Atmospheric Cleanliness Claim
Radiological Concerns: The member suggests that because uranium accounts for only 1 part in 100,000 of the pellet mass, the fission fallout would be negligible—perhaps even less than atmospheric argon neutron activation.
The Reality Check: While the mass of fission products is tiny, fission creates highly toxic, biologically active radioactive isotopes (such as strontium-90, cesium-137, and iodine-131). Even a minuscule fraction of a percent of uncontained fission products expelled directly into the atmosphere during continuous rocket flight would face insurmountable regulatory, environmental, and safety hurdles for atmospheric use.
Conclusion
This proposal is a brilliant intellectual exercise that bridges sub-atomic catalysis with macro-scale propulsion. The micro-scale physics of fragment escape and fusion heating are internally consistent, but the dual hurdles of muon generation efficiency and the open-atmosphere release of fission products mean it remains firmly in the realm of speculative advanced engineering rather than an imminent reality.
It's not clear to me why anyone would consider a nuclear propulsion system for atmosphere use. I understand that the Orion engineers seriously considered using bomlets to lift great mass from the Earth to Orbit, but those ideas eventually yielded to the benefits of using this method for deep space propulsion, where byproducts are dispersed.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
In this post, I asked Gemini to explain how Muons are made and what kinds of accelerators might be suitable.
How Muons Are Created and Accelerator Considerations
Introduction to Muons
A muon is an elementary particle similar to an electron, possessing a negative charge (or its antiparticle, the positive muon), but with a mass roughly 200 times heavier.
They are unstable particles with a very short lifetime of about 2.2 microseconds, making their capture, cooling, and acceleration a unique technological challenge.
Interactions.org
+ 1Creation Mechanism
Natural Production: Cosmic rays (primarily high-energy protons) strike atomic nuclei in the Earth's upper atmosphere, generating showers of pions that subsequently decay into muons.
Accelerator Production: High-intensity proton beams (such as those from linear accelerators or rapid-cycling synchrotrons) are smashed into heavy target materials like graphite, carbon, or titanium. This collision produces intermediate particles called pions, which quickly decay into muons.
muonsources.org
+ 2Types of Accelerators Considered
Proton Driver Accelerators: The initial foundation for generating high-flux muon sources, responsible for delivering the dense primary proton beams needed to create pions.
Muon Cooling Channels (Ionization Cooling): Because newly born muons scatter wildly in terms of direction and velocity, specialized cooling systems (such as using silica aerogel or magnetic cooling cells) are required to pack them into a tight, manageable beam before they decay.
Radio-Frequency (RF) Linear Accelerators & Circular Colliders: Rapid-acceleration structures designed to boost muons to high velocities (e.g., upwards of a significant fraction of the speed of light) within their fleeting lifetime window, paving the way for future high-energy muon colliders.
Interactions.org
+ 1
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
In this post, something surprising happened... I asked Gemini to try to imagine a space craft using Calliban's Muon catalyzed reaction, and it asked me to authorize access to something called "Linear". According to Co-Pilot, "Linear" in this context is not a separate product, but I'm not clear on what it actually ** is **. I went through a multi-step authorization process, and now (whatever it is) is working. Here is a first result:
Taking a concept like a spine-mounted linear accelerator and pushing it to the level of a working, continuous-thrust starship is the ultimate exercise in speculative engineering. To make the "Big Enchilada" work, we have to bridge the gap between particle physics, plasma dynamics, and aerospace architecture.
When your member proposed a linear accelerator running down the spine of a ship, they struck upon a profound structural truth: if you are going to push a spacecraft continuously to generate a steady, comfortable fraction of a G, the structural load path must be as straight and direct as possible. Pushing from the tail of a flimsy cylinder causes buckling; pushing along a reinforced, rigid spine acting as an industrial particle accelerator distributes the forces cleanly.
Here is how that concept matures into a functional, working projection of a continuous-thrust vessel:
1. The Spinal Architecture: Dual-Purpose Linac
In a traditional particle accelerator, a linear accelerator (linac) uses oscillating electric fields to drive ions down a vacuum tube. In this ship design, that very same spine serves a dual purpose:
WikipediaThe Accelerator / Thruster: Reaction mass (such as hydrogen isotopes or heavier inert gas ions) is injected at the "front" or core generation point, fed into the linear magnetic nozzle running the length of the spine, and accelerated to extreme exhaust velocities. By tuning the electromagnetic fields, the crew can precisely regulate the thrust vector.
The Structural Keel: The linear accelerator casing isn't just a fragile glass or ceramic tube; it is a heavy-duty, magnetic-superconducting composite truss that forms the literal backbone of the ship. All habitat modules, fuel storage rings, and heat rejection systems are pegged to this spine, experiencing a uniform inertial load downward toward the engines.
2. The Power Core: Closed-Cycle Fusion and Direct Conversion
A continuous G-force requires an uninterrupted, monumental torrent of energy. Chemical fuels are entirely out of the question; even standard nuclear fission is too energy-dense-limited for long-duration, high-thrust operations.The Engine: The system relies on a steady-state magnetic confinement fusion reactor (such as a D-He3 or advanced p-B11 reactor to minimize lethal neutron radiation) housed near the aft of the spine.
Direct Energy Conversion: Instead of just boiling water to turn a turbine, much of the fusion plasma's energy is tapped directly via magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) conversion, transforming high-speed charged particles straight into electrical current. This electricity feeds the massive capacitors and induction coils of the spinal linear accelerator.
3. Continuous Operation and Mass Management
Running continuously means solving the most stubborn equation in rocketry: the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. If a ship burns reaction mass continuously to accelerate halfway and decelerate the other half, the initial mass ratio becomes staggering.The Propellant Strategy: To maintain a modest, comfortable continuous acceleration (say, 0.1g to 0.5g, providing gentle artificial gravity without requiring a massive centrifuge), the ship cannot carry all its fuel as dead weight from day one.
In-Space Refueling & High Isp: Because a linear accelerator can achieve an extremely high specific impulse (I sp )—meaning it squeezes maximum velocity out of every single kilogram of reaction mass—the total mass fraction required is vastly lower than a chemical rocket. Even so, a practical projection would see these ships operating as part of an infrastructure where reaction mass is scooped from gas giants or mined from outer system bodies, rather than lifted fully loaded out of Earth's deep gravity well.
4. Thermal Management: The Silent Killer
Any continuous-thrust nuclear ship faces a brutal thermodynamic reality: waste heat. If your fusion core and linear accelerator operate constantly, you generate gigawatts of waste heat. In the vacuum of space, you cannot use convection; you can only radiate.The Solution: The ship's design must incorporate enormous, glowing droplet or planar radiator fins spanning vast surface areas parallel to the spine, kept edge-on or angled away from the thrust vector to prevent thermal saturation. The spine itself acts as the primary thermal bus, circulating coolant loops from the reactor to the radiator wings.
Summary of the Working Projection
When expanded into a working projection, your member's idea transforms into a magnificent, needle-like configuration:At the bow: Command and shielded human habitats, kept as far as possible from the radiation of the engine.
Along the middle: Cargo bays, closed-loop life support biospheres, and heavy heat radiators hugging the structural keel.
Along the center: The massive, magnetic-superconducting spinal linear accelerator tube channeling plasma exhaust.
At the stern: The high-output fusion reactor core relentlessly pouring power into the spine.
By turning the ship's backbone into a particle accelerator, the vessel doesn't just travel through space—it surfs a continuous, controlled beam of its own making, marrying structural mechanics and quantum-level propulsion into a single, elegant architecture.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
I have no idea what "Linear" is but whatever it is, it needed permission to use additional features in order to format reply in BBCode.
My goal here is to see if we might be able to create plans to build a space craft using Calliban's Muon idea. Here is a preliminary attempt in BBCode.
Muon-Catalyzed Fusion-Fission Hybrid Space Drive Design
Core Concept: Utilizing negative muon ($\mu^-$) catalysis to induce rapid fusion between deuterium and tritium (or deuterium-helium-3) at significantly lower thermal energies than standard magnetic or inertial confinement systems.
Fission Blanket Integration: Surrounding the muon-catalyzed fusion core with a sub-critical actinide blanket designed to capture high-energy fusion neutrons, multiplying the total energy output and providing superior specific impulse ($I_{sp}$) for deep-space transit.
Target Population & Scaling: Sizing the primary operational architecture and habitat life-support parameters for a target population of 1000 crew members / colonists.
Magnetic Confinement & Muon Recovery: Implementing advanced cyclotronic muon trapping and magnetic mirror fields to minimize muon decay losses and maximize the catalytic turnover rate ($\lambda_c$) per muon before capture by alpha particles.
Next Steps for System Optimization:
Refine the cross-section calculations for muon sticking probabilities in high-density plasma states.
Model the thermal dissipation rates within the sub-critical fission blanket during continuous high-thrust maneuvers.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
I added a link to Wikipedia's article on Muons to the opening post of this topic.
Post #4 by Mars_B4_Moon and #5 by Calliban seem to me to provide support for the hypothesis that MCF (Muon Canalized Fusion) might act as a match to initiate fusion in a pellet. My hypothesis is that if fusion is initiated at all, it might be sufficient to encourage fusion of additional material.
As I understand Calliban's proposal, a combination of fission and fusion, under bombardment by protons of sufficient energy, might be capable of ignition. In the context of a space craft, the output of a reaction needs to be harnessed for operation of the spacecraft and for propulsion.
Output of neutrons and neutrinos does not appear (to me) to be very helpful.
Output of charged particles might be helpful for power generation, and the mass directed away from the engine might contribute to thrust.
The original Orion spacecraft achieved thrust by accelerating inert mass toward a pusher plate at the stern of the vessel. The force of that inert mass pressed against the pusher plate, and through the action of springs, the pusher plate imparted force to the vessel.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
It has been a long time since I read up on Inertial Confinement Fusion, but I comment based on what I remember. Achieving ignition of a fusion fuel pellet requires that the pellet is compressed to enormous density, typically using laser ablation of it's outer layers. This part of the process is actually (relatively) easy to do. But in addition to compression of the fuel pellet, the fuel must be heated to ignition temperature, which is about 4KeV, from memory. This is energetically more expensive to do. Achieving both compression and heating simultaneously, is very difficult.
By the mid-1980s, a slightly different strategy was being pursued, known as hot spot ignition. Lasers would be used to compress the inner core of a fuel pellet. Another laser would then drill through the pellet a deliver enough heat to the centre of the pellet to achieve fusion within the core. If done properly, this would result in a detonation wave that ignites the entire pellets. This is energetically much cheaper than the blunt force approach of both compressing and heating the entire pellet to ignition. But in reality, compressing the pellet and drilling through and heating it's core in the nanoseconds before it dissociates, has proven to be very technically challenging. Again, it is relatively easy to compress the pellet to sufficient density. But very difficult to do that and deliver the energy to the centre of the pellet to achieve ignition, all within the same few nanoseconds and accurate to microns.
The approach I am suggesting is that a micron sized piece of uranium or plutonium is put at the centre of the fuel pellet. Lasers are used to provide the required pellet compression, but are not used to provide hot-spot heating. Instead, a high energy proton beam is fired at the compressed pellet. This hits the outer layers, generating negative muons. These then result in nuclear fusion events, that shower the inner fissile core with neutrons. This results in fission within the micron sized dot of U/Pu. This rapidly heats the dot to millions of kelvin in addition to sending fission fragments into the compressed fusion fuel surrounding the core. This results in more fusion, generating more neutrons, which then enter the core accelerating the process. This rapidly results in a hot-spot forming at the centre of the pellet. If successful, it would generate a detonation wave that completely consumes the pellet.
The muons generate the hot spot indirectly. They produce the burst of neutrons needed to start fission within the core and heat it to high enough temperature to start the detonation wave. Fission should yield only a tiny proportion of the total energy resulting, as it is only needed to heat a small proportion of the total fuel at the centre of the pellet and generate the burn-wave. So the radioactivity generated should be minimal. Muons are energetically expensive to produce and is was long ago demonstrated the muon catalysed fusion could not achieve breakeven. However, in this case, muons are not being used to directly trigger the fusion reaction. They are used to produce neutrons, that trigger fission reactions within a small region of the core.
Last edited by Calliban (2026-09-27 18:18:47)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Like button can go here
Pages: 1