[mchargue]

Excellent thread, and good post, asymmetric_implosion. A good mix of hope, statement of fact, and crusty practicality.

[mchargue]

delt0r wrote: This result has long been suspected. Aka really hot solar corona for example. However its difficult to do the math since you can’t assume non resistive MHD among other things.

” non resistive MHD”… In this, or another article link I posted, there was made mention that hot plasma conducts electricity like a superconductor. If it wasn’t in the article I posted here, it’ll be in one of the articles I listed in another post.

[mchargue]

Breakable wrote: Their video presentation smells as fake (actors rather than people working) and their equipment looks like props

I’ve noted the same odor myself, but we’ll see. If there’s something there, a paper, or patent, will eventually be come out. Grist for the mill until then.

[mchargue]

I know that current technology & understanding will not get a better cost for muons. I was speculating on what process might be available that would match the company’s claims.

I’ll guess we’ll just have to wait…

Pat

[mchargue]

Star Scientific answers…

—–
Dear Patrick,

Thank you for your email and interest in Star Scientific Limited.

Perfecting the technique to economically produce pions in vast quantities is
Star Scientific Limited’s major breakthrough in the generation of sustained
muon catalysed fusion and not something we can freely divulge. Thank you for
your interest and we look forward to sharing more news about our technology
with the broader community in the not too distant future.

Kind regards,

Amity Roche
Communications Representative for Star Scientific Limited
—–

Not entirely unexpected, although I do hope that someone’s monitoring patents!

[mchargue]

Joseph Chikva wrote:

In speaking about ‘fusion byproducts’ above, I was alluding to the idea that some other fusion/fission process might be used to produce the pions at a lower input cost.

You can not spend less than rest mass (140MeV)

mchargue wrote: In the same way that you add energy to a system in order to promote fusion, and then reap the (over unity) energy produced, I was wondering if there is a reaction that releases energy in the form of pions. Maybe something that releases the energy of a heavier element in the form of prions…?

Once created muon then you should not spend more energy. As muon will be catched by nucleus creating first “meso-atom” in which muon plays electron’s role, then one “meso-atom” catches one more nucleus creating “meso-molecule” in which two nucleus aproach to each other close enough for acting of strong nuclear forces. That is spontaneous process.
After fusion event muon will create another “meso-atom” and so on till decay. That’s all.

OK. A muon ‘costs’ 140MEV.

The current process for creating muons is not efficient, and costs about 5GEV.

However, if there is some other nuclear process that produces muons less expensively – and I don’t know what that is – then it may be that the cost associated with muon production can be lower. The idea would then be to use that other process to manufacture muons for less than 140MEV. Maybe by firing neutrons at some X-material which causes a reaction whose decay products include a rash of pions. (which themselves decay to muons) The reaction in the X-material would simply have to release more energy (in terms of pions) than it consumes.

It’s speculation based on the assumption that the company is correct in their claims.

I’ve written them – I’ll see if they come back with anything that I can offer here.

Pat

[mchargue]

Joseph Chikva wrote:

I was a little disappointed that their presentation did not include any specifics on muon production. As muons are so heavy, their production must entail a lot of energy. I would have liked to have understood from whence the energy came; whether from an external power source, or some earlier fusion byproduct.

There is no difference for energy balance from whence the energy comes; whether from an external power source, or some earlier fusion byproduct.
In any case there is a spent energy.

In speaking about ‘fusion byproducts’ above, I was alluding to the idea that some other fusion/fission process might be used to produce the pions at a lower input cost.

In the same way that you add energy to a system in order to promote fusion, and then reap the (over unity) energy produced, I was wondering if there is a reaction that releases energy in the form of pions. Maybe something that releases the energy of a heavier element in the form of prions…?

If a reaction like that were available, then pion production might be more efficient, and thus alter the energy cost of muon catalyzed fusion.

It’s just speculation at this point. I’d really rather hear the company detail their process.

Pat

[mchargue]

I was a little disappointed that their presentation did not include any specifics on muon production. As muons are so heavy, their production must entail a lot of energy. I would have liked to have understood from whence the energy came; whether from an external power source, or some earlier fusion byproduct.

Also, the process generates neutrons, which are responsible for for the radioactivity associated with waste. How long-lived is the waste? (something that’s likely already known for the well-researched fusion antecedents)

Here’s hoping they break loose with a bit more detail soon.

[mchargue]

“Are female scientists welcome here?”

Yes, and happy to have you here.

Pat

[mchargue]

Breakable wrote: It depends what kind of formations the discharge would form. It can form “U” type shapes, or it can form “^” type shapes.

Well, two ‘U’ shapes, side by side, ma e a ‘^’.

The gist is, either the erosion can be eliminated, or it can be managed. Elimination is, I think, unlikely, and I think the question is how to best manage the erosion. Take the conductor out, and turn it every two weeks?

I was thinking that there might be some way of taking advantage of the erosion to focus its effects it in such a way so as to remove the ‘high points’ from the conductor.

Maybe there are material properties of the conductor that can assist this, or maybe some other means can be found to focus current flow through the high points so as to evaporate them. Thus, by using either the passive means, or active means, you’d preferentially wear down the high points until the entire conductor was back in true.

I can think of a few experiments I’d try alredy.

[mchargue]

Wouldn’t the ‘high points’ on a circular, knife-edged conductor wear faster than surrounding low points? That is to say, if the material wears, I would think that the areas that experience the most wear would be those that conduct first, and the most: the high points. Wouldn’t that be a self-correcting situation?

If it is, to some extent, maybe the effect could be amplified so that the knife-edged conductive ring would self-adjust.

Pat

[mchargue]

What’s also interesting about this research, and published results, is who did it.

I note that the research was done & published by a 22 year old student. Someone who is likely not already on the ‘dark matter’ band wagon, or whose reputation is tied to the theory. Someone who went where the research & facts lead him, as opposed to only pursuing results that confirm what everyone else knows to be true.

I consider the ability to question authority a strength is science, but worry that this case may also indicate a moribund situation in more senior research personnel. The evidence was, after all, there for millions of years in space, and a long time here on Earth as well.

Pat

[mchargue]

From research that I’ve done, using a laser to initiate the closing of the switch is possible. The question before, I think, must have been if the effort to develop a laser-based gap switch could be justified in the face of the (mostly) functional spark-gap switches.

I think that with the advent of this technology, it becomes easier to justify the research needed to develop a better switch, and to get the advantages it seems to offer: more repeatability, better simultaneity between switches, the ability to tune the switches electronically, the ability to increase the gap to lessen pre-firing, and the chance to stop using SF6 as the switch gas.

I hope that the folks running the experiment are trying to get the inside word on these thing, test results from the researchers pursuing this technology, and some units in for testing.

Pat

[mchargue]

Well, it’s nice to see that such a device is becoming available. I wonder how well it could be applied to enhance the spark-gap mediated current switches that are being used now.

If nothing else, it should make experimenting with the idea of a laser-based current switch easier to conduct.

Pat

[mchargue]

Remember the Discovery channel show, ‘Time Warp?’ It was a show where a couple of folks would use their high-speed cameras & recording equipment to explore how things happen. In some cases, they actually assisted experimenters who were trying to understand some event, but couldn’t properly visualize it.

Maybe you should call on them? They might e interested in trying to show you what’s happening…

Pat

[Author]

Posts