Legitimate Cold Fusion Exists | Muon-Catalyzed Fusion

[@gevmage]

This is brilliant. I worked on a muon-catalyzed fusion experiment as an undergrad in 1994. It was an experiment that had been going on for a while at TRIUMF in Vancouver. Both the explanations and the rendering are absolutely perfect, and are exactly how I would have done this video but far better. Thanks!

[@MarkBrowning]

I'm a fracking nuclear engineer and I've never heard of muon catalysed fusion! This is amazing!

[@clex2349]

Then what do they teach you in college- How not to be incinerated in a nuclear blast? (Still useful though...)

[@148crusader]

@@clex2349 That RBMK reactors don't just explode.

[@guerra_dos_bichos]

@@clex2349 I'd say a bit more useful

[@mydogbrian4814]

- And I created physics; & neather have I! (heard of it)

[@ponchietto]

Ever heard of metastable nuclear isomer ? www.thoughtco.com/nuclear-isomer-definition-4129399 That's also an incredible thing I discovered just a few years ago... (but I am a mathematician).

[@quahntasy]

Minutephysics is back with muons. Long time no see, sixminutephysics.

[@thomasdam9916]

2πminutephysics* :p

[@jormam69]

@@thomasdam9916 you mean tauminutephysics?

[@thomasdam9916]

@@jormam69 yeah τminutephysics is the same. But since the video's covering muons ( not pions or taons) shouldn't he've made the video mu minutes long? 🤔🤔

[@ssdd9911]

u r that guy who appeared in blackpenredpen's video?

[@Kram1032]

That's not τ minutes. It's 6.45 minutes. τ minutes would be 6:17

[@Platyfurmany]

Muon-catalyzed fusion was a favorite tool for Arthur C. Clarke in the space drives of several of his more famous novels.

[@afwaller]

Imagine replacing all your electrons with muons. All your atoms would be around 200 times smaller! Interestingly, ants are also about 200x smaller than humans - with an average ant clocking in at around 10mm, and a human closer to 2m. This would make you a sort of ant-man. I think there’s a possibility for a movie here, it might be a fun story to explore.

[@databanks]

So, Ant Man is a walking fusion bomb?

[@guy3nder529]

this actually would be a great explanation for ant man. perhaps pim-particles stabilize muons?

[@willyou2199]

I think the muon would be the pim particle here.

[@Mernom]

You'd also be even heavier than your current weight. So ~200 times smaller, and ~200 times heavier... That's 200^2 more mass to volume ratio. Which means that you're more likely than not to break the floor under you.

[@TheAgamemnon911]

Not quite... only the electrons are replaced with heavier particles. All other things (the nuclei) stay the same. So, no floor breaking until you start the fusion.

[@Adam-zt4cn]

I'm sad that all of the interesting exotic particles and types of matter that scientists discover have a lifespan of few microseconds. It seems the universe really doesn't want us to have unobtainium armor :(

[@garethdean6382]

Vantblack, tantalum carbide, tungsten metal... the universe gives us plenty. The thing is we've gotta EARN it, we've unlocked a few perks already we just need to grind a few more levels before we can start getting the REALLY awesome stuff.

[@KnakuanaRka]

You have the logic backwards; these particles are exotic and interesting *because* they don’t live for long, and thus we don’t see their effects very well. The stable ones are abundant because they stick around, so we’re familiar with them, and they don’t seem as fantastic.

[@dennperoni5209]

@@KnakuanaRka You've hit the nail on the head. The word "interesting" is just a matter of personal taste. In my view protons, neutrons and (first and formost) neutrinos are much more interesting than all these exotic particles.

[@andrewzhang8512]

@Jonathan Stiles do *Cough*graphene*Cough*

[@pairot01]

If they didn't have such short lifespans they would be mundane rather than exotic, like neutrinos and electrons. At one point in history having ice ready for consumption in every household was unobtanium, now it's just a routine part of our lives.

[@PajamaMan44]

I guess we just have to muon and try something else

[@imveryangryitsnotbutter]

Your style of humor is strange, but charming.

[@sausage4mash]

that was awful, get your coat.

[@oldtimer5111]

Haha I see what you did there, very amuonsing.

[@guy3nder529]

mu-on

[@dariusduesentrieb]

HAHAHAHAHAHAH huAHahaUAHAa AAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! AAAAHAHAHAHHHH?????

[@dougr.2398]

Muon induced fusion was mentioned by Arthur C. Clarke in “2061: odyssey three” in the “Addendum” Oct. 1987 , referencing a Scientific American article by Sakharov. My graduate school colleague, Dr. Scott Chubb (deceased) organized “cold Fusion” seminars in the US

[@wichjr]

So glad these aren't just a minute anymore

[@mokkaherrman1104]

Changed like 7 years ago. Maybe it's the french "minute" , which would simply mean "short"

[@TheFroggynator]

That bass note after "It's not going to power the world anytime soon" is absolutely perfect.

[@TheFrostDrake]

Sounds like we need more efficient particle accelerators

[@DOOT_II]

We need the Argent Tower

[@tr33c21]

lazer technology getting super effecient every year. The answer lies there.

[@Deboned_butter]

Sounds like we need more funding

[@killman369547]

We need more efficient.... everything. No i'm not kidding. Inefficiency is what is really f**king humanity over right now.

[@primenumberbuster404]

​@@Deboned_butter Here we gooo

[@electronicsNmore]

I remember all this "Cold Fusion" talk back in the late 80's - early 90's.

[@tomlxyz]

@BlueRedAndYellow what

[@beringstraitrailway]

The method described in this video goes way back farther than that!

[@beringstraitrailway]

@@tomlxyz They can do it using th is method which doesn't heat, but it takes more energy to do it than what comes out of it.

[@kelvinyonger8885]

@@tomlxyz See the video, it can be done, but at present time is a net consumer of energy, with little hope of improvement.

[@mynameisgleeriplaypiano4620]

@BlueRedAndYellow that has been explained in the video

[@infiniteshadowz8341]

I'm curious what happens when muon-catalysted fusion is done at a much higher temperature. Would it increase the amount of fusions per muon? Would the muons stick less often?

[@ggeasy8499]

He said Angular Momentum, not spin. Love it!

[@BioniclesaurKing4t2]

Now show me the numbers for tau-aided fusion.

[@Videohead-eq5cy]

Guaranteed cold fusion for about 10 nuclei but takes more energy than muon generation, as it is both heavier and shorter lived

[@MrMediator24]

Tau-aided? *XENOS HERESY*

[@Rene9adeSU]

@Rooper K 01000001 01001100 01001100 00100000 01001000 01000001 01001001 01001100 00100000 01010100 01001000 01000101 00100000 01001111 01001101 01001110 01001001 01010011 01010011 01001001 01000001 01001000

[@PydraxAlpta]

@@Rene9adeSU ALL HAIL THE OMNISSIAH What is an omnissiah

[@vampyricon7026]

@@Videohead-eq5cy Legit numbers?

[@davidhanson7691]

I really like the breakdown of what 3 possible ways to overcome this are. You make it sound like it is quite forward, but of course each possible way is difficult in itself.

[@professordanfurmanek3732]

Outstanding and wonderfully explained! Also very inspirational for further muon research! Not only for energy production but also for space propulsion systems. A catalyzed muon drive is indeed a very promising engine!

[@RamiShreds]

Perfectly explained. You should consider starting a science podcast.

[@loganiushere]

It could be used to produce the heat needed to start a regular fusion reaction, which would help commercially viable fusion. Muon catylized fusion power plants?

[@mediawolf1]

1. Wow, never knew that. 2. That one graph with snow, the earth and the sun along the x axis, is my new favorite Edward R. Tufte-esque diagram. Visually conveys the concept being discussed in a simple compelling way.

[@ananyapathak8312]

Looks like now I shouldn't make a particle accelerator in my backyard...

[@robertt9342]

Ananya Pathak . Still seems like a good idea, just make sure you have proper shielding.

[@zockertwins]

hold a magnet next to a light bulb and you are done.

[@guy3nder529]

but you must!

[@ginnyjollykidd]

Well, this happened: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g5jFm5VuZ5dsnJo

[@JetfireQuasar]

That pun was heavier than normal ;)

[@johncassuri2573]

I just don't understand why there are over 300 dislikes, it's simple, precise and easy to understand even to people who don't like much physics, nice job

[@thomas.02]

Are those numbers you quoted "physics" limits or "current engineering" limits?

[@Reydriel]

Definitely "current engineering" limits. We wouldn't even be studying this if this process is inherently physically net negative.

[@khenricx]

the 5 GeV is an engineering limit. The other are all pretty much physics limits.

[@wingracer1614]

Reydriel I'm not so sure about that. The fact that muons are so massive means it's going to take a lot of energy to make them. I'm sure the limit is substantially lower than 5 GeV but it's not nothing either. As for research, even if it were conclusively proven that this could never be used for a net positive reactor, people would still study it. The knowledge that could be gained could have a far reaching impact on many fields, not just fusion power.

[@fryncyaryorvjink2140]

We could have a hybrid reactor, muon aided hot fusion

[@wingracer1614]

Nabre Labre Why? You could have used half the energy you used to make the muons to instead just heat up the plasma and get hot fusion for less energy.

[@WillaDaKilla474]

The fact that we actually *have* antimatter astonishes me. It's such a wild, science-fiction-esque material that I had just assumed it was purely theoretical but to know that we've been making and studying it for some 60 years just blew my mind.

[@MenacingPerson]

We haven't even made a gram of it and if we were made of antimatter we wouldn't know

[@cephalosjr.1835]

@@MenacingPerson Actually, certain physical processes do treat antimatter differently from matter. This is known as C violation or CP violation. CPT symmetry may be exact, but maybe not.

[@5ty717]

Muons are not antimatter bro. Fusion is not antimatter induced cause that would be far more energetic and efficient but it’s much harder than fusion which it pretty easy to

[@5ty717]

Muons are not antimatter bro. Fusion is not antimatter induced cause that would be far more energetic and efficient but it’s much harder than fusion which it pretty easy

[@sosig6445]

@@MenacingPerson You mean if everything in the universe is antimatter and we are making "matter" in the particle collider we wouldn't know because what is "anti" and "normal" is subjective

[@kristijan9790]

Muon The cat particle

[@eventhisidistaken]

I always that that was cations.

[@burtosis]

Muons are emitted by cations, but only when they feel affectionate.

[@pepkin88]

Meown

[@gearoidgarvey8266]

Cations are also known to produce purrtons

[@jorgepeterbarton]

its the cow particle in some american accents

[@TechNed]

It's great how you explain the complexities, scribble on the whiteboard AND play the bass, all at the same time.

[@giklbastos]

cant you use light with the proper wavelength to separate the muons from the nucleus?

[@suryaabhishek]

Na. If I understood your comment correctly, that might also result in preventing the fusion in the first place.

[@thomas.02]

But the ionization energies of hydrogen-muon should be different to helium-muon, hence shooting lasers at helium-muon energies should not affect hydrogen-muon bonds, unless I'm missing something here (which I should)

[@Mernom]

That would probably also take quite a bit of energy, as well as expose sensitive precise light emmiting equipment to the energies relased by said fusin (which is a barrier to any attempts to split them off really)

[@ginnyjollykidd]

@@thomas.02 You're only missing laboratory confirmation. Much support to you in your research.

[@MattZelda]

@Michael Bishop Experimentation time.

[@johnnymnemonic8487]

I love to watch physics videos but usually the person teaching in the video doesn't know how to explain what they're talkin about. This guy is great at explaining things to where it's easier to understand. I'm subscribing to minutephysics right now.😁

[@stavinaircaeruleum2275]

Also you forget, this probably hasn't received much funding.

[@movax20h]

You can perform cold fusion with normal plasma (positive nuclei and with electrons). You are not going to produce any net energy, but it can be used for other stuff, like constant source of alpha particles, creation of exotic isotopes, etc.

[@tiosulfate6492]

I knew the existence of Muon because of an old work on space particules, and we used a engine to catch and count them, so why can't we just try to catch them and use them before they decay?

[@choltha]

Your Videos are so awesome. How you explain things with seemingly simple but well thought, neat drawings, while making the result also entertaining and at the same time super easy to understand is really impressive. Thanks for all the effort!

[@chimerawizard5639]

Clicked thinking it was going to be another wacko theory video. Stayed for actual science. subscribing.

[@ElizabethGreene]

Positrons, the antimatter flavor of electrons, can also catalyze fusion. There is a company called positron dynamics working on this for space propulsion.

[@durpswagjr3962]

Ahhh. minute physics. The channel where none of their videos are a minute long. XD

[@diamondflaw]

mi·nute3 /ˈminit/Submit noun plural noun: minutes; noun: minute 1. a summarized record of the proceedings at a meeting.

[@durpswagjr3962]

@Conner Stevons why not minutes physics ????????????? XD, its just a joke

[@HuntingTarg]

The same complaint has been levelled for centuries against the 'minute waltz'...

[@medexamtoolscom]

Maybe they're minute pronounced the other way, mine-oot, as in really tiny.

[@MaxBrix]

Check out the channel Great Big Story they have a bunch of vids 1 minute or less.

[@Vini-BR]

Cold Fusion TV is one of the best KZbin channels of all, plus Dagogo's voice is delightful!

[@BlakSerge]

“Hey Dagogo here, you’re watching ColdFusionTV”

[@gdash6925]

OMG XD

[@CaptTambo]

This video was well put together and easy to follow. On top of that, you learn something complex in a fun easy to understand way.

[@danjw3359]

What keeps this from being able to fuel a transition I to electron fusion? Couldn't the energy given off act as a starter to get the fusion process going at a lower cost than it would be trying to start fusion from a "cold start"?

[@curseofgladstone4981]

@Freezi Boii The energy used to create. Muon is far greater than what it gives off with fusion and its own mass energy equivalent. However if you use the waste 49x mass energy from the muon creation for some other purpose or recycle it in some way couldn't you get a net positive result?

[@HansLemurson]

The "Cold Start" is not the problem that stops Fusion from being viable. It's not like Fission where if you just achieve critical mass the reaction will take care of itself. Fusion is achieved by creating and maintaining a high-energy environment that allows fusion to occur. Creating these environments is difficult, but not impossible: (lasers, plasma discharge, particle accelerator...). Maintaining the environment is harder(, but still within our capabilities. But so far, the fusion-environments we've been able to create don't cause enough fusion events to pay for their upkeep. To make matters worse, much of the energy released by the fusion (and accompanying high temp plasma) is in the form of high energy X-Rays and Neutrons, which are dangerous and hard to capture. Current areas of research to improve fusion are: -Improved Containment to reduce energy loss from the high-energy environment -Improved energy-capture, to try to make use of the Neutrons and X-Rays -Improved fusion fuels whose products are easier to capture (but which require even more intense environments).

[@shanieboi86]

A bit late but thanks, your videos are great and I hope your last 6 years has rewarded your brilliance.

[@henridehaybe525]

Isn't the lifespan of the muon another limiter of the number of fusions it can perform ? Even if it doesn't get stuck ?

[@gytux0258]

@@dr.blockcraft6633 Seriously? Thats fascinating.

[@fredbach6039]

My lab worked on getting the numbers. 20 atmospheres at temperatures between 1000 and 2000 degC. The power created does not at present suffice to power an accelerator to make the muons. Incidentally, this is properly called "warm fusion" to clearly distinguish it from "cold fusion" which at present does not exist.

[@zawyehtike5056]

Hello there, minutephysics! Great to see you again with your videos which all provide such simplicity to complexity! :) I am here because i have a question that has been pondering me since my childhood which especially is for physics. QUESTION: What is the difference between energy, mass, force, matter, space and volume? Are they all the same? What are they? What do they even mean? What does E=MC2 even mean? PS: I really hope you have the answer to it since I understand deeply in my heart that you can explain something that others find it unexplainable. And besides from that, I hope you have a nice day and may success be with you! :) - Zaw*

[@jonathanodude6660]

all of these things are google searchable and some people will definitely be able to explain them to you. *energy* is the ability to do work, its literally the capacity for something to happen, i dont think you can get a more basic definition. if it happens, it takes *energy*. *matter* is like a concentrated form of energy which has properties like electric charge, *mass*, *volume*, density, texture etc. speaking of *volume* though, its the amount of *space* taken up by the matter. *space* is really just part of spacetime which you could probably describe as existence itself. its basically distance, with distance being currently defined as the change in position of light in a certain amount of time. Ive talked about *energy* and ive talked about *mass*, but i havent explained how either of them actually work. *mass* is able to exert a *force* towards itself from all directions (gravity), as well as being able to be acted on by the gravitational force of other matter or other completely different forces. a *force* is anything that can change the momentum of *matter*. and it uses *energy* to do so. *mass* can apply a *force* that permeates all of *space* but is actually affected by its *volume*. im tired of typing this hopefully its good enough

[@smurfyday]

You don't become billionaire by helping humanity, unfortunately.

[@zilianthegreat]

@@jonathanodude6660 One error there, the force of gravity exerted by mass is affected by the amount of mass and not the volume that the mass takes up.

[@zilianthegreat]

Also, one could argue that gravity isn't actually a force, but an *effect* of the 4D spacetime curvature which makes objects that are moving in a straight line in 4D look like accelerating objects moving in a curved line to us mere 3D beings.

[@Argentix]

you cannot calculate the curvature in space with just the mass. volume always has to come with the mass. @@zilianthegreat

[@omsingharjit]

2:19 wikipedia confused me , but i understand it here that it was about two atoms which is closer together by this process

[@lvintagenerd]

Electron: I am the best non-neutrino lepton! Muon: HAH, you amatur... Tau: Hold my-

[@lvintagenerd]

3 ys has passed.

[@moderator8247]

Bozon: I’ll hold your existence

[@markTheWoodlands]

Another great example of why I love this channel

[@jfgagne956]

Super cool: in this case, muons acts as nuclear reaction catalysts !

[@placticine2514]

Why not use x-ray photons (~15MeV) to unstick the muons from the Helium-3 nuclei? They have enough energy to bring muons up to the dissociation energy for helium (~11MeV), and you get ~150 chances to hit the muon. X-ray pulses every 40 picoseconds would allow the muon to catalyse close to 150 fusion reactions before getting ionised by the x-rays, freeing it from any nucleus it may be stuck to and allowing it to continue catalysing fusion reactions. This can be repeated about 500,000 times until the muon decays, giving about 75 million fusion reactions per muon, or 1.3PeV output per muon. Assuming 99.9% of x-rays fail to ionise the muon, this is still 1.3TeV output per 5GeV input to produce a muon. I'm sure my numbers aren't perfect and I'm probably missing something, but this feels like a step forward? Especially if particle accelerators get more efficient to reduce the energy required to produce muons in the first place.

[@Toddawaddles]

Videos like this are why I love this channel: clear, concise, and as always, quick instruction. Daddy want more.

[@erichodge567]

This stuff is amazing. It's even more amazing that we can even know this stuff.

[@yevrahas]

What is the status of piezonuclear fusion? Steven Jones work at BYU in the 1980's, prior to the Fleischmann-Pons events, did detect neutrons. The detection of neutrons was interpreted as nuclear fusion occurring at room temperature, but a a level so low that there was no practical application.

[@garethdean6382]

You're correct, it's confirmed but way, way too inefficient. You can get a trace of hydrogen to fuse but it's nearly impossible to increase the efficiency unless you have liquid metallic hydrogen which is pretty much unobtainium at the moment.

[@sulphurous2656]

You must not forget several other laboratories picking up tritium.

[@aadharshram4975]

Hi minutephysics, I really love your video and encourage to make more of it. Just a question How do you really make artificial negatively charged Muons?

[@quontox9247]

To be fair, normal fusion has only just been developed to break even and hopefully soon will produce some net power, and it seems like there's a lot more research being done on normal fusion than muon-catalyzed fusion.

[@jjeherrera]

The energy of the future which will always remain so. :-D

[@Soken50]

@@jjeherrera I see you follow the research closely, there is some progress being made, it just takes a lot of efforts and funding which governments often see fit to put elsewhere. It will come, we just have to be patient and not trust clicbait articles saying it's 30 years away, it might still be a full century away, depends how fast we solve current problems with commercially viable sustained net positive fusion

[@wasd____]

The great thing about fusion is that it somehow manages to never get old and obsolete. No matter how long passes, it keeps being the hot new up-and-coming energy of the future that's just a few years away! :D

[@MrLittlelawyer]

@@wasd____ I mean, it is the energy of the stars. Who wouldn't want that?

[@jjeherrera]

Great explanation in a short capsule. The problem in the production of negative muons is that you'll get positive, neutral and negative pions from the proton collisions, and the lesser fraction will be negative pions, which are the ones decaying into negative muons. In other words, much of the energy is lost in the production of useless pions. Maybe if high energy physicists could figure out the way of fixing this, the problem could be solved. By the way, around 1985 or 86 there was a brief revival of muon catalised fusion research, when it was proven by Rafelski and Jones (yes, the same physicists who claimed they had obtained "cold fusion", independently from chemists Fleischmann and Pons) that the number of fusions per muon could be increased under certain conditions. There was even a specialised journal on the subject, but it faded within a few years.

[@tnztng]

Wow. Interesting topic :)

[@c.v.4070]

U 1st u win

[@stefanoninivaggi98]

I'm studying particle physics rn and I've studied the properties of the muon some days ago, when our teacher talked about the muonic atom (it's important for some experiments) I actually thought about this exact use. But if the energy is so little it really isn't worth al the problems with building an accelerator.

[@outputcoupler7819]

One small wrinkle with any potential 80's style cold fusion; it can't stay cold. You can initiate the reaction at very low temperature, but since physics prohibits perfectly efficient systems, you can't capture all of the energy from the fusion reaction, and the reactor gets very hot, very fast. It wouldn't be millions of degrees, but it's not going to be anything remotely 'cold' either. 80s style cold fusion, a fusion reaction that continues indefinitely at room temperature with net energy production, is total nonsense. It can't exist for the same reason we can't build internal combustion engines that never heat up.

[@DKTAz00]

That's complete nonsense. Yes it heats up, that's the whole point isnt it? 'room' temperature is compared to millions of kelvin, so it could still be 100's of celsius. But if you're saying that low temp steam isnt very efficient, I completely agree.

[@outputcoupler7819]

@@DKTAz00 No, what I'm saying is that 'room temperature' has a specific meaning, and 2000K isn't it. A consistent feature of these silly 80's cold fusion reactors was the idea that because it's so low energy you can make the reactor out of ordinary materials with no radiation shielding, often with devices smaller than your average diesel generator. That's so far from correct that you can't even call it nonsense anymore. Fun fact, one of the most popular of these scam devices, the Energy Catalyzer, was "tested" in 2015. It heated up to over 1000C and exploded, _just_ from chemical reactions between the supposed catalyst and hydrogen without any fusion. I'm not trying to sling mud at the idea of fusion at temperatures lower than normal, just at the crackpots who have completely bastardized the idea with preposterous claims based on their total lack of understanding of physics. For instance, the claims of electrolytic cells which produce kilowatts of power from hundreds of watts of input power (or even zero input power) by converting things like nickel and hydrogen to copper, something so infeasible it doesn't even happen in supernovae. Or the even more numerous crackpots who claim their device totally works but they're being suppressed by the evil fossil fuel companies, and offer to sell (but not demonstrate) the devices for huge sums of money. I say '80s style' because all this nonsense started in the 1980s when a convicted criminal, Andrea Rossi, heard about muon catalyzed fusion and decided to run with the idea and try to separate some fools from their money. I don't know if he made any money, but he certainly inspired a lot of fools to try to reproduce his 'work'. To even attempt to do so requires a complete lack of understanding or willful ignorance of pretty much everything related to power, fusion and physics in general. There are countless reasons why these silly devices can't work, but my favorite is simply pointing out that even if the device worked, it would destroy itself with the energy you failed to capture. It would also kill everyone in the vicinity with a fun mix of deadly radiation, but mostly it'd be the neutron and gamma radiation that nobody has ever bothered to deal with in these designs. And yes, you'd get a fatal dose of radiation more or less instantly even at just a few kilowatts. Real power plants have mechanisms to deal with waste heat, something seen only occasionally on these scam devices. They're usually extensively insulated, in fact, because the scam generally relies on amplifying measurement errors and intentional flaws in methodology to make a system look like it's getting hotter than it should.

[@ginnyjollykidd]

You never could capture 100% of energy generated. Of any energy - generating system. The biggest goal is to get out more than you put in. To get a net gain of usable energy after you hit activation energy of a system.

[@Abdega]

Cold-er fusion I guess

[@Fif0l]

@Håkan Lundberg there is no scientific definition of cold, however when we talk cold fusion we usually mean fusion happening at temperatures considerably lower than the Sun or a tokamak.

[@75egcg]

I remember an episode of the red green show where red made a perpetual motion machine by having a lawn mower that’s always on cut ever growing grass that shoots out into some collector that makes the grass into some kind of bio fuel and pours itself into the gas tank of the lawn mower. He also made a 4-wheel drive car by chopping two cars in half and welding the front end of each car to the back of the other one. Honestly Red Green show should be considered a science show.

[@ENDESGA]

Does that mean if you replace all electrons in your body with muons, you'd be ~200x smaller? You'd be super dense and heavier too right? Damn, that's some neat shit right there

[@garethdean6382]

You'd also explode in a cloud o instant fusion, so there's that.

[@Kibaoftheleaves]

You would explode into a human fusion reaction.

[@MagnusSkiptonLLC]

And even if you magically didn't spontaneously become a giant ball o' fusion, all the muons would decay within a split second, and you would spring back to full size as they became electrons, though more likely you'd probably just disintegrate since there's no way all your nuclei would find their way back to their correct spots. In short, replacing all your electrons with muons = BAD IDEA.

[@fryncyaryorvjink2140]

New Gatorade with Muons, its what plants crave!

[@themartianway]

And that ladies and gentlemen is how you get super powers.

[@dongato6838]

WOW! First Bob "EngineerGuy" Hammack comes back then Minutephysics also posts. A great day for science enthusiasts.

[@Big007Boss]

You are talking about electrons as if they are orbs moving around... Aren't they gust energy waves represented in the form of orbs ???

[@sciaskswhy3705]

Depends on your prespective

[@sciaskswhy3705]

Sometimes they behave like particles sometimes they behave like waves (sorry for grammatical errors)

[@EGH666]

depending on if you are measuring them or not. fascinating

[@guy3nder529]

actually your grammar is fine. also explaining this phenomenon while getting into all the electron behaviour as waves and particles is impossible in even under 10 minutes, especially since you must assume most viewers have minimal background in physics. i think more than educating people about science, these kind of youtube vids can get people interested in physics and perhaps presume in a more academically professional setting.

[@olfmombach260]

And so is literally every other quantum object.

[@nickjudd5188]

Your drawing is brilliant! Combined with your commentary, what a brilliant video 😍

[@Caspar__]

Could we somehow use the ton of muons created by cosmic radiation?

[@medexamtoolscom]

It's too vacuous. You see, the reason that doesn't cause fusion to happen is because it increases with the SQUARE of their quantity - it only facilitates fusion between 2 hydrogens if they both have muons instead of electrons. Which means that if only 1 in 1000 hydrogens has had its electrons replaced with muons, only 1 in 1 million interactions between hydrogens will have 2 with muons meeting.... but if you improve that to 1 in 100, suddenly it's 1 in 10 thousand instead of 1 in a million. So you see, the rate at which fusion happens would go drastically down very quickly as the density of muons goes down. It's all or nothing, you need a LOT of them or it is useless. And a single cosmic ray may have a lot of energy but it still just doesn't produce LARGE quantities of muons. It's too sparse.

[@BaalTomekk]

@@medexamtoolscom Plus you would need to transport them inside your fusion reactor in less than 2 microseconds

[@WaveOfDestiny]

What about dropping stuff into very small black holes and use their Hawking ratiation as a way to convert mass into energy somewhat efficently? The smaller the black hole is, the faster it evaporates. The problems are: 1 can our colliders output enough energy to create one 2 can we regulate the collider to launch into the black hole a constant ammount of mass per time so the black hole stays stable 3 can we efficently use the Hawking radiation as an energy gain 4 does launching small amount of mass into the black hole require a lot of wasted energy? 5 can the black hole(s) be small enough that it can give reasonable amount of energy per time (be hot enough), without them being really unstable?

[@lexzbuddy]

Fusion isn't difficult. Using fusion to produce more energy than is required to start / sustain the reaction, that is another thing. Simple fusion can be done when you produce a plasma state. Anyway, just thought I'd mention it.

[@reh3884]

Anyway, everyone already knows that.

[@psyxypher3881]

I've heard about Metallic Hydrogen potentially being metastable (meaning it will stay metallic hydrogen if taken out of the conditions that form it) and being a potential room-temperature superconductor. Can you do a video on it?

[@DorthLous]

No free lunch, heh?

[@lutyanoalves444]

generate muons, generate power, to generate muons, to generate power.... cue: "infinite Power" by TheFatRat

[@greenanubis]

nope. its make your own lunch or steal it from someone.

[@briand8090]

Any chance of creating muons with solar energy? Could muons be generated in space and beamed back down to a muon cold fusion device on the ground? Throwing some sci-fi ideas around here. That's how the aliens power their tech. Muon cold fusion. Muon beam weapons. Muon force fields.

[@rogercoulombe3613]

Tanstaafl.

[@lutyanoalves444]

@@briand8090 muons last for a very short period of time. the only way they can be useful is if we can get easy and efficient ways of getting muons and then using them right away. if were using the solar energy anyways, why complicate things?

[@Varksterable]

Glad you posted again; I've been wanting to say a few things for a long time. 1) It's a great channel, and I really enjoy it. Such a wide range of things that are enough to cover the basics, or enough to encourage further research. :) 2) That bass track sounds cool for the first half of at least one video. But try watching the entire series back-to-back and not going out of your mind. When I watch even one new episode now, the bass drives me mad. I get a headache within a minute. I have a backlog of your stuff to watch because every time I try to watch them my brain just hears the bass and nothing else. Not in a good way; it's literally masochism to watch your stuff now. :| JustSaying.

[@Arakasi0]

Muons? I prefer the old'ones.

[@eaterdrinker000]

Don't forget the you'uns from Pittsburgh and Appalachia.

[@ger128]

Is the reason why muon-atoms are 200x smaller than normal atoms, because the radius of the electron (or muon) determined by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which says you can't know a particle's momentum with certainty, and since muons have more mass, they don't have to be moving as fast to have the same momentum (and meet the minimum Heisenberg threshold momentum), therefore they don't have to travel as far?

[@elvest9]

can't you just buy a 10lb pack of myons from costco for $1,99?

[@Tlaloc1]

Sami Tynninen not sure if I’m gonna get woooshed, but muons are different from myons. Muons last for an extremely short amount of time.

[@TheAgamemnon911]

actually, they are the same just different writings.

[@Tlaloc1]

Agamemnon AFAIK, the plural form of muon is muons, and myons are something else. Point is, muons can’t be bought at costco because they last for for fractions of seconds.

[@TheAgamemnon911]

AFAYK is the problem here. "muon" is the english version, because of pronounciation of the letter y. They are absolutely the same thing.

[@ginnyjollykidd]

*face-plant*

[@_JayRamsey_]

I just found out that my four year old loves Minute Physics. He started talking about asteroids afterwards, so I doubt he understands, but it's a pretty good start.

[@ultimate01]

This video is 2pi minutes long

[@MaximusMuleti]

That would be × if we all talked in f(×)=y

[@ANDREWISNTSOGOODER]

i'm confused, at around 3:40 in the video, you said that after a pair of nuclei fuses into helium, the muon could go off and help more nuclei to fuse, but you also said that muons die after 2 micro seconds at around 3:06, how would the muons be able to keep helping nuclei fuse until they get stuck in 2 micro seconds without the atoms moving so fast that they bypass room temperature?

[@SOJACjac]

This seems like a simple fix. I have an idea

[@matthewmurdoch6932]

This channel is wonderful. I hope you are very proud.

[@VaibhavShewale]

im smarter then 5:34 minute earlier me

[@T--xo2uq]

Keep in mind, though, that we can still use this for alchemy. The sun has a LOT of power, putting a few solar stations scooping up hydrogen could be used to manufacture Iron itself. On that note, does the muon reaction produce more energy for heavier elements like oxygen and neon? It might actually be profitable at bigger scales.

[@JeremyWS]

Billionaires need to fund this research. I want cold fusion power plants in my lifetime.

[@lolbots]

lol...no

[@wingracer1614]

Not going to happen but hot fusion might be a thing in your lifetime if you still have a few decades left to go.

[@oneofmanyparadoxfans5447]

Who doesn't want cold fusion?

[@GTA5Player1]

Not sure about cold fusion, but I'm still hoping mining asteroids might become profitable sometime soon.

[@oneofmanyparadoxfans5447]

@@GTA5Player1 Platinum and Gold for days!

[@ecave3435]

but cosmic rays that hits atmosphere, they create muons too, if we use this technique maybe we can make muons based power plant, or should we just recreate earth's atmosphere in a satelite so the muons won't decay much

[@Zweistein001]

Interesting. I thought cold-fusion was a myth.

[@xplinux22]

Cold fusion is not a myth, but cold fusion capable of producing usable energy is. There was "cold fusion craze" many decades ago when several questionable papers were published which claimed to have developed fusion at room temperatures practical for power generation, but each of them were disproven pretty quickly. Few mainstream scientists agree with these papers today, citing numerous experimental and conceptual flaws and lack of reproducibility of the results. In contrast, this method of using muons to fuel room temperature fusion is legitimate and well-established, but as mentioned in the video, cannot be used practically as a power source.

[@SaveTheFuture]

I thought it was being reconsidered: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eZqxdaSXe7WCaqM

[@rashidisw]

So how about using muons to create an profitable fissile-able material?

[@SaveTheFuture]

@@xplinux22 Eyal Kalderon I don't see why it's impossible to produce muons with less energy. If they can get the number to a fraction of what it is now, it could work.

[@SaveTheFuture]

I guess that until then we'll have to keep doing deals with Saudi Arabia and getting into wars in the middle east. I mean, muon fusion can't generate enough energy, solar panels aren't efficient enough, I guess we should just give up and go work for the oil companies.

[@vinaysrivastava4317]

Why wasn't I taught this in school? Really it only took a minute to understand such tremendous possibility!

[@RayDrouillard]

A number of people, including a high school kid, have successfully made a Farnsworth Fusor. Unfortunately, you still have the same problem of having to put more energy in than comes out. It's a cool way to get neutrons, though.

[@Alexagrigorieff]

Good news, everyone!

[@michellegiacalone1079]

This a fascinating study into the theoretical nature of rese- wait, did I just watch a whole Minute Physics video WITHOUT A SINGLE STICK CAT?!?

[@joefisher3950]

This video is awesome, i’ve been trying to understand better how nuclear fusion works and that is a really good explanation. Now that I understand it, I can write a paper on it.

[@TheJarrodh]

This was proposed as a method of propulsion for interplanetary travel though which was super interesting.

[@wereid1978]

The questions I have: Why does the muon get stuck? Is there a way to get it unstuck? Is there a way to prevent it getting stuck? And if there are ways, do these ways cost too much energy or are they possible viable options?

[@Jerom_]

Just an idea: Can't you use the beam that also produces muons to heat up a hydrogen plasma enough for hot fusion to happen? Theoretically speaking the energy in the beam that produces muons isn't actually lost, which would mean that the rest of the energy could be used to also heat the hydrogen plasma. Your 5 GeV beam actually produces about 2.6 GeV of extra heat through cold fusion. I could see how this theoretically can push fusion energy into the net positive region. I might be missing something though.

[@gaius_enceladus]

**Excellent** video! I'd never heard of this kind of fusion!

[@rogerahier4750]

Cold fusion easy. Neutrons have a negative charge when you get really close. A helium 3 molecule near absolute 0 becomes magnetized and solid under a high magnetic field. As the molecules are lined up, you have 2 protons orbiting a neutron. As they approach each other from rapid compression, they will offset so the neutrons line up vs the other's protons. This will greatly reduce the coulomb barrier. The neutrons get hit by 1 of the orbit protons of the other. They twist into a Helium 4 nucleus and the other 2 protons fly off at high speed in opposite directions. No photons or neutrons emitted. Just pure kinetic energy in charged particles. Many ways to soak that up.

[@vanillacokejunky]

For the Fixes part, my first instinct is to "create more muons" instead of "use less energy to make one". I guess it means almost the same thing - looking for a more energy efficient process for creating the muons. I guess I just interpreted the first point only as "use less energy", while what I was thinking was more along the lines of "use MORE energy, just more efficiently".

[@tonysparks1682]

The recent discovery of net energy gain produced in a fusion reaction made me realize I discovered the formula for cold fusion a while ago. Here is the equation... 0^a * 0^b = a * b This means... 0^1 * 0^1 = 1 * 1 Which means... 0 * 0 = 1 * 1 Which also means ... 0 * 0 = 1 Thank you -Tony Sparks😁😎🤑

[@UncleKennysPlace]

Does that happen when I was doing atomic hydrogen welding? (Sounds much cooler than it really is.)

[@josephfitz1022]

I'm probably very wrong with this but if muons have a negative charge stick a big magnet or something like that away from all the nuclei, the muon will fly through all the nuclei fuze them and then get pulled along towards the magnet

[@clex2349]

If you shoot muons at heavier particles that are positively ionized, and that (probably) won’t fuse- Could you theoretically make super dense “materials”?

[@clex2349]

Oh yeah forgot Oof

[@eye2077]

Here we have a problem generating muons, and in some dark matter expermients, there's a problem isolating muons and neutrinos, and various other particles, its bizarre to see that what is noise/waste for one experiment is a hurdle waiting to be overcome in another.

[@beringstraitrailway]

I can't believe today is the first day I've ever heard about this. If they've know how to do this since 1956, then you would think that scientists would be trying to produce the same effect with different materials until they can find a way to improve the input/output ratio.

[@younscrafter7372]

I see many comments suggesting to use cold fusion as a starter for regular fusion. Cold fusion doesn't give if net energy, so how could it start anything? Also, starting regular fusion is not the problem, so this seems to be a non-solution to a non-problem Edit: okay, you could shoot a stream of muons (which would take lots of energy to create) at hydrogen to catalyse fusion and heat up the hydrogen until it reaches the ignition temperature for regular fusion, but we've got better ways to heat up hydrogen that are more than 54% efficient and don't require a f-ing particle accelerator

[@0tto9]

Thank you for researching this and presenting it in a way I can understand.

[@nic12344]

It might not be good for energy production, but for spaceship propulsion, it's a promising tech!