Talk:Muon-catalyzed fusion

message: The introduction to the cold fusion article has a link to muon-catalyzed fusion. This article began by saying that Jones and Rafelski "initiated" muon-catalyzed fusion, but as you see from the link, they did not. Sakharov, Frank and Alvarez initiated it. (See the article here and Mallove, p. 108). So I removed Jones and Rafelski from the first paragraph. They did contribute to muon research, however. Perhaps someone should patch up the muon-catalyzed fusion article to include them. I am not familiar with their work, so I cannot do this. --JedRothwell 15:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe add Jones and Rafelski to muon article 

message: I would just like to point out that the first sentence is wrong. All the papers on muon catalized fusion that I have seen require tepuratures around 1000 K before significant amounts of fusion will occure. I realize that this is well below the tempuratures need for MFE but 1000 K is not room tempurature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.95.94.110 (talk • contribs).
:I've altered the first sentence slightly in response to your (anonymous) suggestion.  However, I know I've seen papers discussing cool fusion at truly cool temperatures, such as at liquid DT temperatures, where the rates of cool fusion are not at all shabby!  See, for example, any of the Phys. Rev. Lett. articles by Steve Jones concerning experiments he and his group performed at LAMPF (the Los Alamos Meson Production Facility).  Somewhat ironically, cool fusion needs to have temperatures that are below about 1 or 2 eV or so, corresponding to about 10,000K or 20,000K or so, because otherwise the Vesman resonances, which accelerate the formation of the muonic molecular ions, become useless, while hot thermonuclear fusion needs to have temperatures that are above at least 5 keV or more, corresponding to about 50,000,000K or more!
Randyfurlong 01:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first sentence 

message: Seriously – we don't need all the particle symbols past the first use (perhaps once in each section).  They clutter up the article and make it almost unreadable. –EdC 18:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting required 

message: Wow, the footnotes on this article are incredible.  Someone was up late at night working hard on those, thanks :) - JustinWick 19:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy footnotes batman! 

message: At "least" "some" of those "terms" "are" "established" "terms", and should "be marked" emphasis (emphasis), not "doubly blippy". Rursus 12:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article bleeding from double blips: " here and " there 

message: The article makes it sound like the energy produced by the muon's decay simply disappears. It doesn't (it can't!)-it too should become either thermal energy or a gamma ray.
Right? Scythe33 (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muon decay energy 

message: Can muons increase the rate of other fusion reactions such as the aneutronic reaction p + 11B →3 4He + 8.7 MeV ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwarren us (talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muon-catalysis of other fusion reactions? 

message: Hi guys.  I haven't yet formed an opinion on Cold fusion; my connection to the subject is that I just reviewed that article over at WP:GAN and passed it.  There is kind of a late-breaking news story going on here; one of the fathers of hot fusion in Japan just demo'd his cold fusion experiment to a lot of people in the hall named in his honor in Japan, and it was fairly well-received.  The story is picked up at http://www.physorg.com/news131101595.html, which is a news site that up to now hasn't been willing to touch "cold fusion news" with a ten-foot pole.  So it might be prudent to back off any assertion in the lead of this article one way or the other on the subject of "cold fusion", and just stick to saying that that's something that muon-catalyzed fusion is not called, these days.
Btw, input over at Cold fusion is always welcome. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article shouldn't talk much about cold fusion, except for a brief statement.  However, it would be appropriate to mention in the lede something along the lines of, "muon-catalyzed fusion is unrelated to cold fusion, a controversial subject considered pathological science by the mainstream scientific community."  All of this is supported by the cold fusion page (so it would be easy to add a source), and would help to clear up confusion in regards to the link between these articles. 209.2.238.217 (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  if the Widom-Larson theory is correct, what is happening in CF, if legit, is that a single proton hydrogen ion is being paired with a muon to produce a tight hydrogen atom that is effectively neutral in overall charge enough that it passes through the Coulumb barrier at much lower energy levels. So these two things could be related.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.44 (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Could say that μCF is described by the standard model, unlike CF. Fourtildas (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold fusion 

message: Is there any record of attempts to use larger molecules in order to guide the process?
What about shooting muons down the length of a polymer such as (CF2CH2H3)n? Also, the stuff should be piezoelectric in the same manner as Polyvinylidene_fluoride too, which might be useful. Too bad it melts at such a low point... Zaphraud (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering the hydrogen in a solid? 

message: hi, my question is, if the sticking is a result of the fact, that a myons bohr-radius is possible on the inside of the atom-core... or if this another physical law... if this would be about the reasion of beeing "inside" tha atom -core that would mean, that a lighter negative electzrical particle (about 100 times heavier than an electron) could be used as a cold fusion catalyzer, not? greeting Q  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.117.127.238 (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sticking 

message: Someone added a comment about Jackson's use of the term "meson" being mistaken, since mesons are understood to be quark-antiquark pairs but a muon is a fundamental particle.  However, Jackson's use of the term mu-meson was in accord with the usage of the term "meson" in 1957, when a "meson" was simply any particle with a mass intermediate between the mass of an electron and the mass of a proton.  That's why I undid the edit that added the comment.
Randyfurlong (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Jackson's use of the term mu-meson 

message: I moved the historical / sociological impact stuff to the top of the article, for the general reader interested in getting an overview of the topic. I left the detailed jargon-filled stuff at the bottom for people very interested who want to know all the technical details. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  reordering for the general reader 

message: I agree with some of the criticism: the description of the process is buried several paragraphs down, I think it could be moved up to nearly the top. The suggested description ain't bad:
Muons are unstable subatomic particles created in particle accelerators. They are similar to electrons, but about 207 times more massive. If a muon replaces an electron in an atom's orbit, the nuclei are consequently drawn 207 times closer together than they would be in a normal molecule. When the nuclei are this close together, the probability of nuclear fusion is greatly enhanced, to the point where a significant number of fusion events can happen at room temperature. Unfortunately, it is difficult to create large numbers of muons efficiently; moreover, their short lifetime of 2.2 microseconds means that a muon can only catalyze a few hundred nuclear fusion reactions before it decays away. These two factors limit muon-catalyzed fusion to a laboratory curiosity, although there is some speculation that an efficient muon source could someday lead to a useful room-temperature fusion reactor.
--Feldercarb (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: 1. Perhaps a note about number of Muons created per watt of input energy would be appropriate. Oh and someone tell me where we get free Tritium? I don't think "weasel words"(:it is believed that the poor energy balance will prevent it from ever becoming a practical power source) is appropriate for overfunded fusion research being labeled "successful" when it generates 100 watts of heat energy for 100,000 watts input. I'm not anti-Nuke in principle however it is bad engineering practice when the average U.S. Nuclear Energy Facility generates the same dollar amount of electricity as it takes to mothball it at end-of-life.
2. Where is the mechanism? [Some Conclusions ......the hyperfine resonant formation...] 'hyperfine' as a wiki reference makes no sense unless you plan on uddating hyperfine. How about College PChem, take the equation of the atom and change the electron mass to that of a muon and voila you get a molecule with closely spaced nuclei, calculate neutron or proton tunneling distance as longer than nucleus to nucleus distance, that is the theory behind Muon caltalyzed Cold Fusion or other Cold Fusion theories.
3. RE: 1H + 11B reaction: wikipedia article 'Aneutronic fusion'. Boron-10 neutron absorbtion cross section (~9000 barns) extends close to its atomic radius; the metallic radius in a metal-boride would be smaller. Nickel Boride is also an efficient Hydrogen activator like Palladium. I haven't found a table of proton absorbtion cross sections although the Aneutronic Fusion page might be a better reference.
Shjacks45 (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious missing points 

message: As of November 2011, Star Scientific Ltd. (Australia) is claiming that they've 'solved' the problem of MCF and have built a 1MW working reactor.  Not worth putting in article yet but worth mentioning here in the discussion section.  Ref: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/12/australian-star-scientific-is-probably.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.200.215.136 (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Scientific Claims 

message: I have written a novel called "Catalysed Fusion" featuring muon catalysed fusion experiments at CERN and other goings on, published online at  https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/152272 .  Would it be useful to add a link to the book ??  Perhaps someone could check the book and decide.  I am declaring my conflict of interest. Fx59022 (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would just be promotion.  However if some independent person writes about that book in a reliable source, then another independent person could add text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictitious novel "Catalysed Fsuion" 

message: Article currently reads in part muon-catalyzed d-t nuclear fusion (like most other types of nuclear fusion), produces far fewer harmful (and far less long-lived) radioactive wastes. This is a common speculation, but so far as I know no more than this, and possibly wishful thinking. The opposite speculation is that fusion will never be environmentally acceptable owing to the nuclear waste produced by neutron activation of the plasma facing material. Andrewa (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the material will be in place for 40 years at a time this is not an issue. Materials chosen will likely lead to particles with a very short half life, and thus the small amount of material (comparatively) is not a considerable issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed

message: Back in the fifties I was a high-school-kid, fascinated by what was going on at the Berkeley Rad Lab.  I would pretend to be a grad student, take a bus to to the Berkeley campus, hitch a ride on the shuttle-bus up to "The Hill" and wander around from one place to another, picking-up reprints of various research reports.  One of those was a blue-mimeo report of muon-catalyzed fusion, and it was described as being in a **liquid-deuterium** bubble-chamber.  Perforce, the muon-catalzyed fusion was a D-D reaction.  I personally read the original research report.
Reference five does not refer to a specific report, and the text for reference five describes it as being a D-T reaction.
The original report should be cited, and the error corrected by whomever else is editing this page.  This is my first Wikipedia post, and I don't know enough to edit it properly.
Steve1729 (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Citation needed

message: The book: Negele, J. W.; Vogt, Erich (1998). Advances in nuclear physics (illustrated ed.). Springer. pp. 194–198.  doesn't mention Hall effect anywhere, let alone p.194-198.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.164.90 (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hall effect? 

message: I just added :Category:Cold fusion. Sorry for not mentioning it when I did the edit. Anyone object to the added category?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The category is almost certainly unjustified. As generally understood, Muon-catalyzed fusion isn't 'cold fusion' in the Fleischmann & Pons sense - as this article makes clear. Per WP:BRD, I am going to remove the category again, and suggest that you don't restore it without first gaining consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the category is inappropriate for the article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I was thinking of cold fusion in the broad sense, that is, nuclear fusion at temperatures much lower than “hot fusion”. In that case the category would be appropriate.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to consider starting a new category "room temperature fusion", and both this article as well as the cold fusion category (among other things) could go into it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That category would be rather useless, as it would contain pretty much nothing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Headbomb, perhaps User:Solomonfromfinland will agree with you, but I feel it's a legitimate suggestion.  If you look at :Category:cold fusion, it contains lots of biographic articles, so I don't see why a category about "room temperature fusion" couldn't have some as well (e.g. the folks who have been involved with muon-catalyzed fusion).Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Would it be appropriate to restore this article to :Category:Cold fusion, and write on said category page, something like, “Articles dealing with nuclear fusion at room temperature, or at least temperatures much lower than “hot fusion”.”? Also, does anyone object to me including a large number of biographies in said category?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this source, it might be better nowadays to call muon catalyzed fusion "cool fusion" to distinguish it from the fringe "cold fusion".  I think the consensus here so far is that the cold fusion category should not host the legitimate and proven muon catalyzed fusion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: There are a large number of "notes" making glib and completely unsupported technical statements here, that come across as the chatty personal commentary of a single editor who is implicitly asserting personal knowledge.  This is a common way for people who want to editorialize on a subject, and consider themselves knowledgeable, to insert their POV stealthily into Wikipedia.  But it's inappropriate, and unacceptable for these pseudo-authoritative notes to be present without citations.  They'll be removed after an appropriate interval to allow for proper referencing to be added.Rep07 (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. There are far too many notes in the article anyway - even if they were cited, they would need trimming, and as unsourced commentary, they certainly don't belong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to chatty uncited pseudo-authoritative "Notes" 

message: In "due to the reduced mass being 196 times the mass of an electron" I suspect reduced should be increased, or possibly produced. ϢereSpielChequers 18:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: reduced mass

message: I am not simply editing the article because I have a conflict of interest.  I am one of the authors in the article referenced below.  However, I think this article is very relevant and the following paragraph should be added in the "Alternative estimation of breakeven" section.  If other editors agree that this is relevant (and not merely self-promotion) please add it to the article.  Thanks for your time.
In 2021, Kelly, Hart and Rose (citation https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7655/abfb4b/data) produced a μCF model whereby the ratio, Q, of thermal energy produced to the kinetic energy of the accelerated deuterons used to create negative pions (and thus negative muons through pion decay) was optimized.  In this model, the heat energy of the incoming deuterons as well as that of the particles produced due to the deuteron beam impacting a tungsten target was recaptured to the extent possible, as suggested by Gordon Pusch in the previous paragraph.  Additionally, heat energy due to tritium breeding in a lithium-lead shell was recaptured, as suggested by Jändel, Danos and Rafelski in 1988 (citation https://journals.aps.org/prc/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevC.37.403).    The best Q value was found to be about 130% assuming that 50% of the muons produced were actually utilized for fusion catalysis.  Furthermore, assuming that the accelerator was 18% efficient at transforming electrical energy into deuteron kinetic energy and conversion efficiency of heat energy into electrical energy of 60%, they estimate that, currently, the amount of electrical energy that could be produced by a μCF reactor would be 14% of the electrical energy consumed.  In order for this to improve, they suggest that some combination of a) increasing accelerator efficiency and b) increasing the number of fusion reactions per negative muon above the assumed level of 150 would be needed.
Rskelly muCF (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested additional paragraph to "Alternative estimation of breakeven" section 

message: I am planning to remove this sentence from the introduction. It's a leftover from a previous version, and it has no scientific basis. There is a series of around 30-ish scientific articles about laser-induced muon creation, over the last 10-ish years, all from the same author. The work has never been reproduced in other labs. Khong (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "Laser-driven muon sources are one possible approach"