Now I could be wrong but I think the Nagamine muon catalyzed fusion
experiments indicates no surplus of energy when going from hydrogen to
helium and going from helium to hydrogen.

I remember the number 2/3 breakeven is a "tight" number where
Nagamine's experiments achieved exactly 2/3 and not a tiny bit more or
less. So I think that this experiment is already a proof that gravity
does not exist in the nuclei of atoms. If it exists then the small
energy of gravity of muons should favor fusion.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

a_plutonium wrote:
Now I could be wrong but I think the Nagamine muon catalyzed fusion
experiments indicates no surplus of energy when going from hydrogen to
helium and going from helium to hydrogen.

I remember the number 2/3 breakeven is a "tight" number where
Nagamine's experiments achieved exactly 2/3 and not a tiny bit more or
less. So I think that this experiment is already a proof that gravity
does not exist in the nuclei of atoms. If it exists then the small
energy of gravity of muons should favor fusion.


Perhaps a better experiment is to form neutrons from protons smashed
with muons and pions, considering that the heavier mass of the muon and
pion should reveal whether there is a "gravitational energy in the
nucleus". The smashing of these pions or muons on heavy metal isotopes
such as osmium or iridium.

Maybe our science equipment or instruments are still too primitive to
find the alleged gravitational energy residing inside the nuclear
region. But that only postpones these experiments until the day we are
more advanced in technology. Because the question at stake here, is
that all of the science community believes and expects there to be a
force of gravity of protons to neutrons or neutrons to neutrons or
protons to other protons. But I believe there is no force of gravity in
the nucleus of atoms.

Just as the StrongNuclear force resides only inside the nuclear region,
I surmized from the Atom Totality theory that gravity only resides
outside the nuclear region of atoms, and specifically -- in the space
where the electron dot cloud resides. So if StrongNuclear force is
restricted to only nuclear regions, then we need the experimental proof
that gravity either does not reside in the nuclear region or does.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

a_plutonium wrote:
Now I could be wrong but I think the Nagamine muon catalyzed fusion
experiments indicates no surplus of energy when going from hydrogen to
helium and going from helium to hydrogen.

I remember the number 2/3 breakeven is a "tight" number where
Nagamine's experiments achieved exactly 2/3 and not a tiny bit more or
less. So I think that this experiment is already a proof that gravity
does not exist in the nuclei of atoms. If it exists then the small
energy of gravity of muons should favor fusion.


I have been reviewing why it is that muons so easily catalyze fusion,
and the answer so far, is that it is because they are gravitationally
heavier. Unless I am wrong, the reason muons facilitate fusion
reactions is due to their heavier mass.

This is encouraging because the force of gravity for nucleons is so
small, but if it is large enough to catalyze fusion, then it is
measurable via some elaborate experiment to find out if the force of
gravity exists within the nucleus.

Now in the catalyzing fusion process, such as Nagamine at Oxford
England, the muon is not inside the nucleus until after the fusion is
complete. So my sense of the muon fusion experiments is that the fusion
is caused outside the nucleus due to the heavier muon particle bringing
the protons together to fuse. So the force of gravity is outside the
nuclear region, but once fused, if the force of gravity exists inside
the nucleus, there should be a measurable amount of energy due to
gravity. But there is not, and so one should conclude that the force of
gravity never enters the nuclear region.

And my above analysis should be even more amplified by pions if pions
are ever employed for fusion.

The point I am making is that the force of gravity is large and
measurable in fusion experiments because it causes the reaction to
fuse, but once fused, the force of gravity which caused the fusion no
longer exists. So that means that experiments can be set up to verify
that the force of gravity is a large factor in the fusion process
outside the nucleus but never enters the nucleus.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

a_plutonium wrote:
Now I could be wrong but I think the Nagamine muon catalyzed fusion
experiments indicates no surplus of energy when going from hydrogen to
helium and going from helium to hydrogen.

I remember the number 2/3 breakeven is a "tight" number where
Nagamine's experiments achieved exactly 2/3 and not a tiny bit more or
less. So I think that this experiment is already a proof that gravity
does not exist in the nuclei of atoms. If it exists then the small
energy of gravity of muons should favor fusion.


I have been reviewing why it is that muons so easily catalyze fusion,
and the answer so far, is that it is because they are gravitationally
heavier. Unless I am wrong, the reason muons facilitate fusion
reactions is due to their heavier mass.

This is encouraging because the force of gravity for nucleons is so
small, but if it is large enough to catalyze fusion, then it is
measurable via some elaborate experiment to find out if the force of
gravity exists within the nucleus.

Now in the catalyzing fusion process, such as Nagamine at Oxford
England, the muon is not inside the nucleus until after the fusion is
complete. So my sense of the muon fusion experiments is that the fusion
is caused outside the nucleus due to the heavier muon particle bringing
the protons together to fuse. So the force of gravity is outside the
nuclear region, but once fused, if the force of gravity exists inside
the nucleus, there should be a measurable amount of energy due to
gravity. But there is not, and so one should conclude that the force of
gravity never enters the nuclear region.

And my above analysis should be even more amplified by pions if pions
are ever employed for fusion.

The point I am making is that the force of gravity is large and
measurable in fusion experiments because it causes the reaction to
fuse, but once fused, the force of gravity which caused the fusion no
longer exists. So that means that experiments can be set up to verify
that the force of gravity is a large factor in the fusion process
outside the nucleus but never enters the nucleus.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)

I have been reviewing why it is that muons so easily catalyze fusion,
and the answer so far, is that it is because they are gravitationally
heavier. Unless I am wrong, the reason muons facilitate fusion
reactions is due to their heavier mass.

This is encouraging because the force of gravity for nucleons is so
small, but if it is large enough to catalyze fusion, then it is
measurable via some elaborate experiment to find out if the force of
gravity exists within the nucleus.

Now in the catalyzing fusion process, such as Nagamine at Oxford
England, the muon is not inside the nucleus until after the fusion is
complete. So my sense of the muon fusion experiments is that the fusion
is caused outside the nucleus due to the heavier muon particle bringing
the protons together to fuse. So the force of gravity is outside the
nuclear region, but once fused, if the force of gravity exists inside
the nucleus, there should be a measurable amount of energy due to
gravity. But there is not, and so one should conclude that the force of
gravity never enters the nuclear region.

And my above analysis should be even more amplified by pions if pions
are ever employed for fusion.

The point I am making is that the force of gravity is large and
measurable in fusion experiments because it causes the reaction to
fuse, but once fused, the force of gravity which caused the fusion no
longer exists. So that means that experiments can be set up to verify
that the force of gravity is a large factor in the fusion process
outside the nucleus but never enters the nucleus.


--- quoting Wikipedia on muon catalyzed fusion ---
[edit] Deuterium-tritium (d-t or dt)

In the muon-catalyzed fusion of most interest, a positively charged
deuteron, a positively charged triton, and a negatively charged muon
(µ-) essentially form a positively charged "muonic" molecular
"heavy" hydrogen ion ((d-µ-t)+).[1] The muon is basically a heavy
electron and, like an electron (e-), is also a fundamental,
point-like particle (as far as present day experimental measurments can
tell).[2] The muon (µ-) has an electric charge identical to that of
an electron (e-), about -1.6x10-19 coulomb.[3]

The muon (µ-), with a rest mass about 207 times greater than the
rest mass of an electron (e-),[4] is able to drag the more massive
triton (t) and deuteron (d) about 207 times closer together to each
other in the muonic (d-µ-t)+ molecular ion than can an electron (e-)
in the corresponding positively charged electronic molecular hydrogen
ion ((d-e-t)+). The average separation between the triton (t) and the
deuteron (d) in the electronic (d-e-t)+ molecular ion is about one
angstrom,[5][6] so the average separation between the triton (t) and
the deuteron (d) in the muonic (d-µ-t)+ molecular ion is about 207
times smaller than that.[7][8][9] Due to the strong nuclear force,
whenever the triton (t) and the deuteron (d) in the muonic (d-µ-t)+
molecular ion happen to get even closer to each other during their
periodic vibrational motions, the probability is very greatly enhanced
that the positively charged triton (t+) and the positively charged
deuteron (d+) would undergo quantum tunnelling through the repulsive
Coulomb barrier that acts to keep them apart.[10] Indeed, the quantum
mechanical tunnelling probability depends roughly exponentially on the
average separation between the triton (t) and the deuteron (d),
allowing a single muon (µ-) to catalyze the d-t nuclear fusion in
less than about half a picosecond,[11] once the muonic (d-µ-t)+
molecular ion is formed.[5]

--- end quoting Wikipedia on muon catalyzed fusion ---

I would argue with many of the points above such as the quantum
tunnelling involved. I believe the *nuclear electrons* from the triton
and deuterium are more involved in making fusion possible. But that is
a topic for later.

My interest here is the feeble explanation of why 207 times more mass
even allows muons as catalysts.

Is this or is this not the force of gravity at work in muon fusion
catalysis? Too many modern day physicists just ignore the errors they
make and ignore those that point out their errors.

So, whoever wrote the above, try breaking down that explanation into
more clear terms.

When the author of the above says:
" 207 times greater than the rest mass of an electron (e-),[4] is
able to drag the more massive triton (t) and deuteron (d) about 207
times closer together to each other in the muonic (d-µ-t)+ molecular
ion "

Is the author saying that the dragging (such a pitiful terminology in
such a highly abstract area of physics. Is the dragging come from the
force of gravity? Or is the dragging some momentum affect?

Sorry to be prying so close and refined in my prying. But the logic
demands it. Because if the FORCE OF GRAVITY is essential to muon
catalyzed fusion, then the force of gravity, even though 10^40 weaker
than coulomb, is a force that can no longer be ignored in nuclear
physics.

And if my above is true in whole or in part, then we are on the
threshold of Experiments that proves the force of gravity does *not
exist* in the nucleus of atoms or isotopes.

The muon catalyzed fusion is outside the nucleus and is an event
preceding entry into the nucleus.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

a_plutonium wrote:
a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)

I have been reviewing why it is that muons so easily catalyze fusion,
and the answer so far, is that it is because they are gravitationally
heavier. Unless I am wrong, the reason muons facilitate fusion
reactions is due to their heavier mass.

This is encouraging because the force of gravity for nucleons is so
small, but if it is large enough to catalyze fusion, then it is
measurable via some elaborate experiment to find out if the force of
gravity exists within the nucleus.

Now in the catalyzing fusion process, such as Nagamine at Oxford
England, the muon is not inside the nucleus until after the fusion is
complete. So my sense of the muon fusion experiments is that the fusion
is caused outside the nucleus due to the heavier muon particle bringing
the protons together to fuse. So the force of gravity is outside the
nuclear region, but once fused, if the force of gravity exists inside
the nucleus, there should be a measurable amount of energy due to
gravity. But there is not, and so one should conclude that the force of
gravity never enters the nuclear region.

And my above analysis should be even more amplified by pions if pions
are ever employed for fusion.

The point I am making is that the force of gravity is large and
measurable in fusion experiments because it causes the reaction to
fuse, but once fused, the force of gravity which caused the fusion no
longer exists. So that means that experiments can be set up to verify
that the force of gravity is a large factor in the fusion process
outside the nucleus but never enters the nucleus.


--- quoting Wikipedia on muon catalyzed fusion ---
[edit] Deuterium-tritium (d-t or dt)

In the muon-catalyzed fusion of most interest, a positively charged
deuteron, a positively charged triton, and a negatively charged muon
(µ-) essentially form a positively charged "muonic" molecular
"heavy" hydrogen ion ((d-µ-t)+).[1] The muon is basically a heavy
electron and, like an electron (e-), is also a fundamental,
point-like particle (as far as present day experimental measurments can
tell).[2] The muon (µ-) has an electric charge identical to that of
an electron (e-), about -1.6x10-19 coulomb.[3]

The muon (µ-), with a rest mass about 207 times greater than the
rest mass of an electron (e-),[4] is able to drag the more massive
triton (t) and deuteron (d) about 207 times closer together to each
other in the muonic (d-µ-t)+ molecular ion than can an electron (e-)
in the corresponding positively charged electronic molecular hydrogen
ion ((d-e-t)+). The average separation between the triton (t) and the
deuteron (d) in the electronic (d-e-t)+ molecular ion is about one
angstrom,[5][6] so the average separation between the triton (t) and
the deuteron (d) in the muonic (d-µ-t)+ molecular ion is about 207
times smaller than that.[7][8][9] Due to the strong nuclear force,
whenever the triton (t) and the deuteron (d) in the muonic (d-µ-t)+
molecular ion happen to get even closer to each other during their
periodic vibrational motions, the probability is very greatly enhanced
that the positively charged triton (t+) and the positively charged
deuteron (d+) would undergo quantum tunnelling through the repulsive
Coulomb barrier that acts to keep them apart.[10] Indeed, the quantum
mechanical tunnelling probability depends roughly exponentially on the
average separation between the triton (t) and the deuteron (d),
allowing a single muon (µ-) to catalyze the d-t nuclear fusion in
less than about half a picosecond,[11] once the muonic (d-µ-t)+
molecular ion is formed.[5]

--- end quoting Wikipedia on muon catalyzed fusion ---

I would argue with many of the points above such as the quantum
tunnelling involved. I believe the *nuclear electrons* from the triton
and deuterium are more involved in making fusion possible. But that is
a topic for later.

My interest here is the feeble explanation of why 207 times more mass
even allows muons as catalysts.

Is this or is this not the force of gravity at work in muon fusion
catalysis? Too many modern day physicists just ignore the errors they
make and ignore those that point out their errors.

So, whoever wrote the above, try breaking down that explanation into
more clear terms.

When the author of the above says:
" 207 times greater than the rest mass of an electron (e-),[4] is
able to drag the more massive triton (t) and deuteron (d) about 207
times closer together to each other in the muonic (d-µ-t)+ molecular
ion "

Is the author saying that the dragging (such a pitiful terminology in
such a highly abstract area of physics. Is the dragging come from the
force of gravity? Or is the dragging some momentum affect?

Sorry to be prying so close and refined in my prying. But the logic
demands it. Because if the FORCE OF GRAVITY is essential to muon
catalyzed fusion, then the force of gravity, even though 10^40 weaker
than coulomb, is a force that can no longer be ignored in nuclear
physics.

And if my above is true in whole or in part, then we are on the
threshold of Experiments that proves the force of gravity does *not
exist* in the nucleus of atoms or isotopes.

The muon catalyzed fusion is outside the nucleus and is an event
preceding entry into the nucleus.


Let me apply a different picture or model as to how the muon catalyzes
fusion for a tritium and deuterium. This model uses the
*nuclear-electron* as the StrongNuclear force. The nuclear-electron is
the electron inside a neutron which spills out in the nucleus and runs
around holding together all the protons. A nuclear-electron is the same
as a regular-electron except that it has no-space. The space of a
regular electron becomes energy for the nuclear-electron. Now it may
well turn out to be the case that the nuclear-electron is almost a muon
or perhaps almost a pion. If we add these energies of the StrongNuclear
force to the regular-electron we get equal to a muon or perhaps a pion.
So a regular-electron is a nuclear-electron minus StrongNuclear force.

So here is a better picture of how a muon catalyzes fusion.

Since a muon is almost a nuclear-electron as the muon comes nearby to a
triton or deuteron it is not that 207 times dragging closer but rather
instead the triton or deutron becomes a huge sized atomic nucleus with
the muon acting like a nuclear electron. So there was no dragging but
that either the triton or deutron became a enlarged nucleus.

So when a muon and triton and deutron come close to one another, the
muon is absorbed by either the triton or deutron and becomes a enlarged
nucleus with the StrongNuclear force now a force larger than a regular
nucleus. And thus the final stages of this picture is that the enlarged
nucleus then absorbs either the trtion or deutron and thus fusion.

This picture that I offer above eliminates as an Occam's Razor both the
need for the 207 times dragging and the quantum tunnelling.

My picture simply says that the muon forms a new atom with either the
triton or deutron and causes a enlarged nucleus (and this is acceptable
because we know that neutrons seem to float from a distance from the
center of nuclei). And the enlarged nucleus is an enlarged
StrongNuclear Force which then fuses the remaining particle of either
deutron or triton.

This model dismisses the need for "207 times dragging" and "quantum
tunnelling".

But what my model may fail to account for is the muon stickiness. If it
cannot account for stickiness then it fails. But I am reasonably
confident this model accounts for stickiness and as to how the muon
participates in many fusions.

What is sweet and beautiful about the above model is that eliminates
two messy issues in the old picture and whenever two competing models
solve the same issue, the model that is the most streamlined and
Occam's Razor is almost always the winning truth.

But the bad news is that I lose sight of the force of gravity, which
was the reason I came to this place in the quest.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped Wikipedia explanation of 207 X dragging)

Let me apply a different picture or model as to how the muon catalyzes
fusion for a tritium and deuterium. This model uses the
*nuclear-electron* as the StrongNuclear force. The nuclear-electron is
the electron inside a neutron which spills out in the nucleus and runs
around holding together all the protons. A nuclear-electron is the same
as a regular-electron except that it has no-space. The space of a
regular electron becomes energy for the nuclear-electron. Now it may
well turn out to be the case that the nuclear-electron is almost a muon
or perhaps almost a pion. If we add these energies of the StrongNuclear
force to the regular-electron we get equal to a muon or perhaps a pion.
So a regular-electron is a nuclear-electron minus StrongNuclear force.

So here is a better picture of how a muon catalyzes fusion.

Since a muon is almost a nuclear-electron as the muon comes nearby to a
triton or deuteron it is not that 207 times dragging closer but rather
instead the triton or deutron becomes a huge sized atomic nucleus with
the muon acting like a nuclear electron. So there was no dragging but
that either the triton or deutron became a enlarged nucleus.


This is a far better explanation of how muons catalyze fusion in that
it simplifies everything. It dispenses with some "picked out of the air
notion" of a 207 times dragging closer coupled with quantum tunnelling.
Instead it simply says that a muon is a nuclear-electron and that it
creates a ENLARGED NUCLEUS when the muon comes close to a normal
nucleus. And the StrongNuclear force then conducts the process of
fusion.


So when a muon and triton and deutron come close to one another, the
muon is absorbed by either the triton or deutron and becomes a enlarged
nucleus with the StrongNuclear force now a force larger than a regular
nucleus. And thus the final stages of this picture is that the enlarged
nucleus then absorbs either the trtion or deutron and thus fusion.

This picture that I offer above eliminates as an Occam's Razor both the
need for the 207 times dragging and the quantum tunnelling.

My picture simply says that the muon forms a new atom with either the
triton or deutron and causes a enlarged nucleus (and this is acceptable
because we know that neutrons seem to float from a distance from the
center of nuclei). And the enlarged nucleus is an enlarged
StrongNuclear Force which then fuses the remaining particle of either
deutron or triton.

This model dismisses the need for "207 times dragging" and "quantum
tunnelling".

But what my model may fail to account for is the muon stickiness. If it
cannot account for stickiness then it fails. But I am reasonably
confident this model accounts for stickiness and as to how the muon
participates in many fusions.

What is sweet and beautiful about the above model is that eliminates
two messy issues in the old picture and whenever two competing models
solve the same issue, the model that is the most streamlined and
Occam's Razor is almost always the winning truth.

But the bad news is that I lose sight of the force of gravity, which
was the reason I came to this place in the quest.

If my above is true in part or whole, then a simple experiment should
show us that muon catalyzed fusion of pure normal hydrogen would be of
a large amount of stickyness of the muons. Muon catalyzed fusion of
deutrons would be less stickyness than pure hydrogen because a deutron
already has a nuclear-electron which expels the muon in many cross
section cases and thus less stickyness. And finally muon catalyzed
fusion of pure triton should be the least sticky for the same above
reasons. So there should be a mathematical relationship of stickyness
with pure hydrogen the most sticky, deutrerium less sticky and tritium
the least sticky of all. If the math numbers follow this pattern it is
because muons are repelled by the nuclear-electrons. So this offers us
a Experiment to test the ideas and theories above.

And we should even be able to use pions since they would even be more
of a nuclear-electron.

The bad news, though, is that I lost my gravity argument. But not to
worry because the periodic table of isotopes shows us that there is no
indication at all of a force of gravity in the nucleus but a good
argument that the force of gravity cannot exist because it favors
fission beyond the element iron, yet as the nuclei become more dense,
fusion is never favored. Gravity would predict a small favoritism for
fusion.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)

This is a far better explanation of how muons catalyze fusion in that
it simplifies everything. It dispenses with some "picked out of the air
notion" of a 207 times dragging closer coupled with quantum tunnelling.
Instead it simply says that a muon is a nuclear-electron and that it
creates a ENLARGED NUCLEUS when the muon comes close to a normal
nucleus. And the StrongNuclear force then conducts the process of
fusion.



If my above is true in part or whole, then a simple experiment should
show us that muon catalyzed fusion of pure normal hydrogen would be of
a large amount of stickyness of the muons. Muon catalyzed fusion of
deutrons would be less stickyness than pure hydrogen because a deutron
already has a nuclear-electron which expels the muon in many cross
section cases and thus less stickyness. And finally muon catalyzed
fusion of pure triton should be the least sticky for the same above
reasons. So there should be a mathematical relationship of stickyness
with pure hydrogen the most sticky, deutrerium less sticky and tritium
the least sticky of all. If the math numbers follow this pattern it is
because muons are repelled by the nuclear-electrons. So this offers us
a Experiment to test the ideas and theories above.

And we should even be able to use pions since they would even be more
of a nuclear-electron.


Now I was reading that in the history of the pion it was first thought
to be the muon. And there is a small difference between the rest mass
of the muon 105 MEV and the pion 139 MEV. And the pion is associated
with the StrongNuclear force, so that a muon acts as a fusion catalyst
because it so closely resembles a pion and thus a *nuclear-electron*.

But what I want to throw into the mix is the tau particle which if
memory serves me has a rest mass of 1117 MEV. Can anyone attest to
whether the tau particle catalyzes fusion? I know it has a lifetime
that is brief compared to the muon. And I forgot the decay products of
the tau.


Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)

Now I was reading that in the history of the pion it was first thought
to be the muon. And there is a small difference between the rest mass
of the muon 105 MEV and the pion 139 MEV. And the pion is associated
with the StrongNuclear force, so that a muon acts as a fusion catalyst
because it so closely resembles a pion and thus a *nuclear-electron*.

But what I want to throw into the mix is the tau particle which if
memory serves me has a rest mass of 1117 MEV. Can anyone attest to
whether the tau particle catalyzes fusion? I know it has a lifetime
that is brief compared to the muon. And I forgot the decay products of
the tau.


I should have better memory for the tau lepton is 1776 MEV and I should
remember 1776.

But going to bed last night, I realized I have enough material with the
gravity = Space magnetic monopole, plus the MEV and meanlife of
neutron, proton, electron, muon, pion, and tau lepton.

Never before in physics history has anyone been able to tell you why
the neutron decays in about 15 minutes. Why the muon or pion have the
MEV they have. Why muons have stickyness. Why the tau lepton has 1776
MEV.

I believe I have enough information from the Atom Totality theory
coupled with gravity being a sea of positron space and coupled with the
concept that the StrongNuclear force is nuclear-electrons. That I can
tell you why these particles have the numbers they have.

But this thread is already way to long and will start a new thread.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies