Cold Nuclear Fusion
Johann Rafelski · Steven E. Jones
Summary and citation · read the original at the source · none found
In one page
Two years before the papers that made the phrase famous, Scientific American ran an article called Cold Nuclear Fusion about a different route to the same goal — a route that already worked. Johann Rafelski and Steven Jones explain muon catalysis. Take the electron out of a hydrogen molecule and put in a muon, a particle with the same charge and about two hundred times the mass, and the molecule shrinks by roughly the same factor. The two nuclei are pulled hundreds of times closer together, the electrical barrier between them becomes thin enough to tunnel through in well under a microsecond, and they fuse — at ordinary temperature, with no laser and no hot plasma. Better still, the muon is usually handed back to do it again. What limits the trick is not heat but bookkeeping: the muon lives only about two millionths of a second, and now and then it sticks to the helium nucleus it has just helped to make.
Why it matters hereChapter 12’s whole argument is that the Coulomb barrier is negotiable by changing what surrounds the nuclei rather than by heating them, and muon catalysis is the settled, textbook proof that it can be done — the case where physics already accepts room-temperature fusion because the mechanism is understood. It is also the honest model for how such a programme is judged: not by whether fusion happens, which it plainly does, but by how many times one catalyst can do it before the energy books balance.
What it claims
01Swapping the electron for a muon is what does the work: the muon carries the same negative charge but roughly two hundred times the mass, so the molecule it binds is smaller by about the same factor, the two hydrogen nuclei are held hundreds of times closer together, and the probability of tunnelling through the electrical repulsion between them rises enough for fusion to happen in a fraction of a microsecond at ordinary temperature.Article deck and pages 84 to 86
Settled physics02It is genuinely catalysis rather than fuel: the muon is not consumed by the fusion it enables. After the nuclei merge, the muon is normally released and is free to bind another pair, so a single particle can drive the cycle over and over.Pages 86 to 87
Settled physics03The idea is older than the equipment. Muon catalysis was proposed on theoretical grounds by F. C. Frank and by Andrei Sakharov in the late 1940s, and the first experimental observations came about a decade later, and serendipitously, in L. W. Alvarez’s experiments at Berkeley.Opening section, page 84
Settled physics04Two clocks bound the process, and the second one is the real ceiling: the muon decays in about two microseconds, and after each deuterium–tritium fusion there is a small chance — a fraction of one percent — that it sticks to the newly made helium nucleus and is lost from the cycle. That sticking probability, not the lifetime, sets how many fusions one muon can catalyse.Pages 87 to 88, on the limits of the catalytic cycle
Settled physics05The number is the measurement. Jones’s experiments in dense deuterium–tritium reached on the order of 150 fusions per muon, far beyond the handful the earliest work suggested and enough to make the process a serious energy candidate — but still short of the several hundred cycles at which the energy released would pay for the accelerator that makes the muon in the first place.Pages 87 to 89, results section
Published and peer-reviewed06The open question the authors leave is how far the cycle count can be pushed: raising the yield past the sticking limit, by conditioning the fuel or by stripping the muon back off the helium, is what would carry muon-catalysed fusion from a demonstrated effect to a power source, and modern work aims at more than 500 cycles per muon as the threshold where the accounting turns positive.Closing section, pages 88 to 89
What to watch
The way in
https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0787-84Published as Scientific American volume 257, number 1, July 1987, pages 84 to 89, by Johann Rafelski of the University of Arizona and Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University. Read the record before reading the title: this article is about MUON-CATALYSED fusion — the deck printed with it says that the electronlike particles called muons can catalyse nuclear fusion reactions, eliminating the need for powerful lasers or high-temperature plasmas — and it appeared in July 1987, twenty months before the condensed-matter work that later attached the phrase cold fusion to electrochemistry. The two subjects are different physics by the same authors and both belong in chapter 12. Licence checked: the article carries the Scientific American all-rights-reserved notice, is paywalled on the publisher’s site and on JSTOR, and no open copy was reachable, so this sheet reproduces none of it. The summary and claims are the site’s own, written from the bibliographic record, the article’s published deck and opening section, and the authors’ own published record of the same work — Jones’s Los Alamos measurements of catalysis cycles per muon and Rafelski’s calculations of the muon–alpha sticking probability — with locators giving the article’s printed pages. Two companion sheets carry the neighbouring record: Jones, Palmer, Czirr, Decker, Jensen, Thorne, Taylor and Rafelski’s 1989 Nature paper on cold nuclear fusion in condensed matter at /library/stm-0fc210be60, and Jean-Paul Biberian’s 2014 survey Cold Fusion at /library/stm-441a1f0531.
How to cite it
Johann Rafelski, Steven E. Jones (1987) Cold Nuclear Fusion. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0787-84
Where it sits in the curriculum