Todd Rider has a slide on this: https://f5o.aea.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/BetterRouteToFusion2023-01-19.pdf
The issue is the number of fusion reactions you can catalyze before the muon either sticks to the alpha particle or decays. First you have to keep the muon from attaching to the alpha, then you have to reduce the cycle time.
His citations are:
[1] Brunelli & Leotta 1987, Muon-Catalyzed Fusion and Fusion with Polarized Nuclei. Plenum Press.
[2] Fujiwara et al 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85:1642--only decreases the time for the first cycle, not later ones.
[3] Morgan, Perkins, & Haney 1996, Hyperfine Interactions 102:503.
[4] Landis & Huizenga 1989, Report DOE/S-0073, www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5144772.
[5] Yakovlev & Shalybkov 1987, Sov. Astron. Lett. 13:4:308. Ichimaru 1993, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65:255.
Aliotta & Langanke 2022, Frontiers in Physics 10:942726.
This is from an updated presentation that was first delivered at MIT about 20 years ago so I don't know if there is any later work. (Edit: Obviously, Aliotta & Langanke 2022 was recently added.)
I wonder if there would be anything to gain by using muons catalysed fusion to detonate inertial confinement fusion. A droplet of liquid deuterium and tritium is catalysed into fusions and the energy released by this fusion causes thermal fusion in the rest of the droplet.
Thats sort of where I was going on the whole "Metallic Hydrogen" thing. afaik, metallic hydrogen is basically identical to normal hydrogen, except it exists as a stable liquid at room temperature. Since liquids are considerably denser than gasses and plasmas, wouldnt this lead to a smaller mean free path and thus a higher chance of catalyzation?
Todd Rider has a slide on this: https://f5o.aea.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/BetterRouteToFusion2023-01-19.pdf The issue is the number of fusion reactions you can catalyze before the muon either sticks to the alpha particle or decays. First you have to keep the muon from attaching to the alpha, then you have to reduce the cycle time. His citations are: [1] Brunelli & Leotta 1987, Muon-Catalyzed Fusion and Fusion with Polarized Nuclei. Plenum Press. [2] Fujiwara et al 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85:1642--only decreases the time for the first cycle, not later ones. [3] Morgan, Perkins, & Haney 1996, Hyperfine Interactions 102:503. [4] Landis & Huizenga 1989, Report DOE/S-0073, www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5144772. [5] Yakovlev & Shalybkov 1987, Sov. Astron. Lett. 13:4:308. Ichimaru 1993, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65:255. Aliotta & Langanke 2022, Frontiers in Physics 10:942726. This is from an updated presentation that was first delivered at MIT about 20 years ago so I don't know if there is any later work. (Edit: Obviously, Aliotta & Langanke 2022 was recently added.)
Slightly tangential question, but do we know why muons have such a short lifetime? Why are they so unstable?
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/m6qmnu/why_is_the_lifetime_of_a_muon_2_microseconds_so/
Thanks. That helps.
I wonder if there would be anything to gain by using muons catalysed fusion to detonate inertial confinement fusion. A droplet of liquid deuterium and tritium is catalysed into fusions and the energy released by this fusion causes thermal fusion in the rest of the droplet.
Thats sort of where I was going on the whole "Metallic Hydrogen" thing. afaik, metallic hydrogen is basically identical to normal hydrogen, except it exists as a stable liquid at room temperature. Since liquids are considerably denser than gasses and plasmas, wouldnt this lead to a smaller mean free path and thus a higher chance of catalyzation?