Skip to main content

LENR and Muon Catalyzed Fusion

Reading about low energy nuclear reactions, (LENR), I came across several theoretical references to protons capturing heavy electrons and then participating in nuclear reactions as a result.  The heavy electron, because it sits in a much tighter orbit around a proton, serves to shield the proton's positive charge from other unsuspecting nuclei until the proton has crept in close enough to fuse with them via the strong force. In modern day LENR parlance, it is speculated that these sufficiently heavy electrons exist in materials, (condensed matter), as a result of the periodic potential due to crystal lattice sites, and the wave nature of the electron, (more on this later), leading to a higher effective electron mass.

While the previous paragraph describes theories of how LENR might occur in present day experiments, it's based on a set of actual observations made in the 1940s and 50s, (picture 1)[6]. In 1958, Luis Alvarez in a report to the Unitied Nations[8 open access] on high energy physics announced that his team had observed several muon catalyzed fusion events.  A muon is a naturally occurring particle that is a member of the same family of particles,(leptons), as the electron.  The muon has the same charge as an electron, but it is about 200 times more massive.  As a consequence of this extra mass, the hypothesis described above for heavy electrons actually takes place.  Interestingly, it was reported in the proceedings of a liquid scintillation conference[5] that as far back as 1958, the term cold fusion was being reported by the press and even then creating a fair bit of mayhem.

You may have heard how Canadian uranium stocks fell several months ago when a newspaper carried the announcement that uranium was now unnecessary because of the discovery of 'cold fusion'.
Jackson, of Jackson EM book fame, did an analysis of the process in 1957 and writing in the +American Physical Society's Physical Review[3] determined that in all likelihood, without a much cheaper source of muons, it would be impossible to derive any useful power,(picture 2).  For more detail on Jackson's involvement  and a rather complete explanation of the subject in general, check out Wikipedia[7].

Alvarez and Jackson both mention that similar observations had been made as early as 1947[1][2].


1.  Frank on hypothetical muon fusion

FRANK F.C. (1947). Hypothetical Alternative Energy Sources for the ‘Second Meson’ Events, Nature, 160 (4068) 525-527. DOI:

2.  Experimental observation I
LATTES C.M.G., OCCHIALINI G.P.S. & POWELL C.F. (1947). Observations on the Tracks of Slow Mesons in Photographic Emulsions, Nature, 160 (4066) 453-456. DOI:

3.  Jackon on Muon Fusion with speculations on useful energy release
Jackson J. (1957). Catalysis of Nuclear Reactions between Hydrogen Isotopes by μ- Mesons, Physical Review, 106 (2) 330-339. DOI:

4.  Wheeler on muon fusion
Wheeler J. (1949). Some Consequences of the Electromagnetic Interaction between μ--Mesons and Nuclei, Reviews of Modern Physics, 21 (1) 133-143. DOI:

5.  Cold fusion report circa 1958 (open access)

6.  Alvarez in Physical Review on Muon Fusion
Alvarez L., Bradner H., Crawford F., Crawford J., Falk-Vairant P., Good M., Gow J., Rosenfeld A., Solmitz F. & Stevenson M. & (1957). Catalysis of Nuclear Reactions by μ Mesons, Physical Review, 105 (3) 1127-1128. DOI:

7.  Very handy Wikipedia article on muon catalyzed fusion

8.  Alvarez to the United Nations (open access)


Popular posts from this blog

Cool Math Tricks: Deriving the Divergence, (Del or Nabla) into New (Cylindrical) Coordinate Systems

The following is a pretty lengthy procedure, but converting the divergence, (nabla, del) operator between coordinate systems comes up pretty often. While there are tables for converting between common coordinate systems, there seem to be fewer explanations of the procedure for deriving the conversion, so here goes!

What do we actually want?

To convert the Cartesian nabla

to the nabla for another coordinate system, say… cylindrical coordinates.

What we’ll need:

1. The Cartesian Nabla:

2. A set of equations relating the Cartesian coordinates to cylindrical coordinates:

3. A set of equations relating the Cartesian basis vectors to the basis vectors of the new coordinate system:

How to do it:

Use the chain rule for differentiation to convert the derivatives with respect to the Cartesian variables to derivatives with respect to the cylindrical variables.

The chain rule can be used to convert a differential operator in terms of one variable into a series of differential operators in terms of othe…

Lab Book 2014_07_10 More NaI Characterization

Summary: Much more plunking around with the NaI detector and sources today.  A Pb shield was built to eliminate cosmic ray muons as well as potassium 40 radiation from the concreted building.  The spectra are much cleaner, but still don't have the count rates or distinctive peaks that are expected.
New to the experiment?  Scroll to the bottom to see background and get caught up.
Lab Book Threshold for the QVT is currently set at -1.49 volts.  Remember to divide this by 100 to get the actual threshold voltage. A new spectrum recording the lines of all three sources, Cs 137, Co 60, and Sr 90, was started at approximately 10:55. Took data for about an hour.
Started the Cs 137 only spectrum at about 11:55 AM

Here’s the no-source background from yesterday
In comparison, here’s the 3 source spectrum from this morning.

The three source spectrum shows peak structure not exhibited by the background alone. I forgot to take scope pictures of the Cs137 run. I do however, have the printout, and…

Unschooling Math Jams: Squaring Numbers in their own Base

Some of the most fun I have working on math with seven year-old No. 1 is discovering new things about math myself.  Last week, we discovered that square of any number in its own base is 100!  Pretty cool!  As usual we figured it out by talking rather than by writing things down, and as usual it was sheer happenstance that we figured it out at all.  Here’s how it went.

I've really been looking forward to working through multiplication ala binary numbers with seven year-old No. 1.  She kind of beat me to the punch though: in the last few weeks she's been learning her multiplication tables in base 10 on her own.  This became apparent when five year-old No. 2 decided he wanted to do some 'schoolwork' a few days back.

"I can sing that song... about the letters? all by myself now!"  2 meant the alphabet song.  His attitude towards academics is the ultimate in not retaining unnecessary facts, not even the name of the song :)

After 2 had worked his way through the so…