Magma as a generator of plasma and thermonuclear fusion in the bowels of the Earth

[serguei58]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
The OP still hasn't posted any 'numbers' to go along with his conjecture that shows muonic fusion to be possible within the parameters of the Earth's core.

IIRC, muon catalyzed fusion does allow the nucleus to be about 200 times smaller due to the reduced mass difference with the electron.
However, this does NOT mean a reduction in the diameter of a proton itself; please cite evidence for this effect, if available.

And, as to the source of the muons.
Every time this scheme has been investigated, the required energy to produce the muons has been more than that produced by the catalyzed fusion reaction.

Muon catalyzed fusion may have a 'right to life', but it will only be considered if other, mainstream approaches fail.

1. A decrease in the size of a nucleus by a factor of 200 already makes it possible to start a thermonuclear reaction, regardless of the size of the proton.
2. Nature has no concept of energy benefit, if for mankind it plays a huge role, then nature does not care. You yourself confirmed this with the words: The synthesis catalyzed by muons may have a "right to life", but it will be considered only if other, basic approaches will fail.  Nature does, nature does not sort out the possibilities based on their benefits.
3. Have you heard anything about the Uranium blanket, which nature can use to cover the resulting thermonuclear reaction?

[MigL]

3 minutes ago, serguei58 said:

 Nature does, nature does not sort out the possibilities based on their benefits.

On the contrary.
Nature ,or the laws of Physics, tend towards lowest energy use.

[serguei58]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Muon catalysis occurring in magma has experimental confirmation?

Why are you clinging to magma?  Muons arise from the scattering of plasma, which was obtained in many laboratories around the world by the high-energy impact on many substances, including minerals and rocks.  And magma is not included in this list?  Magma only gives impetus to the process.

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

On the contrary.
Nature ,or the laws of Physics, tend towards lowest energy use.

The answer is much simpler than you might think.  It simply means that nature has no other way to solve such a problem.

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, serguei58 said:

Why are you clinging to magma?  Muons arise from the scattering of plasma, which was obtained in many laboratories around the world by the high-energy impact on many substances, including minerals and rocks.  And magma is not included in this list?  Magma only gives impetus to the process.

OK, in rocks. Same question.

 

26 minutes ago, serguei58 said:

1. A decrease in the size of a nucleus by a factor of 200 already makes it possible to start a thermonuclear reaction, regardless of the size of the proton

Under what conditions? Are these conditions even remotely similar to what you propose?

 

26 minutes ago, serguei58 said:

2. Nature has no concept of energy benefit, if for mankind it plays a huge role, then nature does not care.

Energy is conserved, and spontaneous reactions release energy. 

 

[serguei58]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

OK, in rocks. Same question.

 

Yes.  Condensed plasma was produced by impacting a shock wave on aluminum dioxide Al₂O₃

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

Under what conditions? Are these conditions even remotely similar to what you propose?

 

Under what conditions? Are these conditions even remotely similar to what you propose?   - ~ 2a_μ = 2h² / m_μe² ~ 5⋅10⁻¹³m. 

[swansont]

Just now, serguei58 said:

Yes.  Condensed plasma was produced by impacting a shock wave on aluminum dioxide Al₂O₃

That’s not what I asked. I asked about muon catalysis. 

The main problem I see is you are assuming that you can daisy-chain multiple phenomena together because the descriptions use similar wording. Such as one instance of forming a plasma, and some other process requiring a plasma. But the circumstances are not identical, so they can’t be blindly equated. Fusing muonium in a plasma doesn’t mean the same will happen with aluminum dioxide.

Each step you link in your proposal is a speculation unto itself. 

[serguei58]

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s not what I asked. I asked about muon catalysis. 

The main problem I see is you are assuming that you can daisy-chain multiple phenomena together because the descriptions use similar wording. Such as one instance of forming a plasma, and some other process requiring a plasma. But the circumstances are not identical, so they can’t be blindly equated. Fusing muonium in a plasma doesn’t mean the same will happen with aluminum dioxide.

Each step you link in your proposal is a speculation unto itself. 

What are you laughing at?  Fusing muonium in plasma doesn’t mean the same will happen with aluminum dioxide???????????  Quite the opposite, the first condensed plasma (WDM) is obtained from aluminum dioxide (or other minerals, rock, magma), and already the plasma (WDM) synthesizes muons during expansion.  It is the scattering of the plasma that causes the appearance of muons, that is, the process is determined by the energetics of the process.  The energetics of the process the first not the composition of matter.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, serguei58 said:

What are you laughing at?  Fusing muonium in plasma doesn’t mean the same will happen with aluminum dioxide???????????  Quite the opposite, the first condensed plasma (WDM) is obtained from aluminum dioxide (or other minerals, rock, magma), and already the plasma (WDM) synthesizes muons during expansion.  It is the scattering of the plasma that causes the appearance of muons, that is, the process is determined by the energetics of the process.  The energetics of the process the first not the composition of matter.

You’re speaking of this as if it’s been observed. Provide experimental evidence of it.

[serguei58]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

You’re speaking of this as if it’s been observed. Provide experimental evidence of it.

What can I answer you?  You probably think that my article was written in order to mislead you.  Experiments with WDM are well known in the plasma research world and there are many good works on this topic.  As Jesus said: Knock and they will open to you, or in your case - seek and you will be happy.

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, serguei58 said:

What can I answer you?  

You can provide the evidence requested.

[serguei58]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

You can provide the evidence requested.

Ladies and gentlemen,
  I wrote this article and posted it on your forum with one purpose - to test my hypothesis on the possibility of determining the source of mysterious deep-focus earthquakes.  I'm not going to dispute anything, I'm trying to get your advice and your opinion on the possibility of such a process in the depths of our planet.

[studiot]

7 hours ago, serguei58 said:

Ladies and gentlemen,
  I wrote this article and posted it on your forum with one purpose - to test my hypothesis on the possibility of determining the source of mysterious deep-focus earthquakes.  I'm not going to dispute anything, I'm trying to get your advice and your opinion on the possibility of such a process in the depths of our planet.

 

Then you need to get your geological statements correct.

You still have not addressed a single one of my points or questions.

This is now the third time of asking for those answers.

 

Is it your normal practice on joining someone else's grouping to immediately defy their rules?

Edited December 21, 2020 by studiot

[swansont]

11 hours ago, serguei58 said:

Ladies and gentlemen,
  I wrote this article and posted it on your forum with one purpose - to test my hypothesis on the possibility of determining the source of mysterious deep-focus earthquakes.  I'm not going to dispute anything, I'm trying to get your advice and your opinion on the possibility of such a process in the depths of our planet.

Then break it down into individual steps, because you are introducing multiple hypotheses, each of which needs to be examined. There’s way too much to discuss in a single thread.

Example 1: muonic hydrogen fusion is difficult to show even under laboratory conditions, where you are forming muonium with a minimum number of parasitic reactions and can exert maximum control over the conditions. You need to show this can happen out in nature, either by a detailed assessment of the factors that affect it, or by showing it actually happens (as with Oklo for fission)

More detail everywhere. Saying some physical process releases power does not in any way guarantee enough energy will be available for some specific nuclear reaction. A Terawatt sounds big, but Avogadro’s number is also big. Very big.

[serguei58]

16 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Then you need to get your geological statements correct.

You still have not addressed a single one of my points or questions.

This is now the third time of asking for those answers.

 

Is it your normal practice on joining someone else's grouping to immediately defy their rules?

List your questions.  For example:
1....
2 ...
3 ...

12 hours ago, swansont said:

Then break it down into individual steps, because you are introducing multiple hypotheses, each of which needs to be examined. There’s way too much to discuss in a single thread.

Example 1: muonic hydrogen fusion is difficult to show even under laboratory conditions, where you are forming muonium with a minimum number of parasitic reactions and can exert maximum control over the conditions. You need to show this can happen out in nature, either by a detailed assessment of the factors that affect it, or by showing it actually happens (as with Oklo for fission)

More detail everywhere. Saying some physical process releases power does not in any way guarantee enough energy will be available for some specific nuclear reaction. A Terawatt sounds big, but Avogadro’s number is also big. Very big.

It seems that bureaucrats have gathered here considering my dissertation for awarding me an academic degree.  Prove that, prove it ... .. Gentlemen, I repeat once again, I have put the work here so that you people who know physics can give an overall assessment of my work, point out possible errors and advise some other scientific schemes when implementing my idea  ...  If you do not understand what we are talking about, then how to show this work to geophysicists who do not have deep knowledge of the physical processes described by me ?????

[MigL]

I don't claim to know much Physics; just have a BSC.
But my advice would be to use the KISS principle ( keep it simple, st*pid ).
Why resort to esoteric and complex explanations  ( like muon catalyzed fusion and quantum processes ) for something that can be explained with 'classical' geophysics?

And don't claim that conventional explanations have all failed, as you didn't provide a single example of failed conventional explanations.
Not only that, but your proposal doesn't offer any explanations either; it is simply a 'guess', and you expect others to work out the details to make it 'fly'.

[serguei58]

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

I don't claim to know much Physics; just have a BSC.
But my advice would be to use the KISS principle ( keep it simple, st*pid ).
Why resort to esoteric and complex explanations  ( like muon catalyzed fusion and quantum processes ) for something that can be explained with 'classical' geophysics?

And don't claim that conventional explanations have all failed, as you didn't provide a single example of failed conventional explanations.
Not only that, but your proposal doesn't offer any explanations either; it is simply a 'guess', and you expect others to work out the details to make it 'fly'.

I came to this forum to meet not only professionals, but also people with whom it is pleasant to talk, and I found pouty turkeys who are bursting with a sense of their own importance, like you.

[MigL]

Pouty turkeys ???
Come on, I thoroughly enjoyed our discussion.
And I'm not the one invoking advanced Physics theories to explain relatively simple geological processes.
( maybe you're trying to aggrandize your own importance by doing so )

What have you got planned next; SuperString Theory to explain the weather ?

[serguei58]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

Pouty turkeys ???
Come on, I thoroughly enjoyed our discussion.
And I'm not the one invoking advanced Physics theories to explain relatively simple geological processes.
( maybe you're trying to aggrandize your own importance by doing so )

What have you got planned next; SuperString Theory to explain the weather ?

And I had no idea that you are not only a physicist but a geologist and seismologist.  A scientist with a wide range of knowledge, for whom there is simple geology, ordinary physics, and not cunning mechanics.  Are you by any chance a hemorrhoid specialist?  Could you advise my grandfather?

[MigL]

19 minutes ago, serguei58 said:

Are you by any chance a hemorrhoid specialist?

No, but I do recognize an asshole when I see one.

( my apologies to the rest of the membership tor my infraction and behavior )

[serguei58]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

No, but I do recognize an asshole when I see one.

( my apologies to the rest of the membership tor my infraction and behavior )

My advice to you, do not look in the mirror and the image of the asshole will not haunt you.

[studiot]

9 hours ago, serguei58 said:

On 12/21/2020 at 9:14 AM, studiot said:

 

Then you need to get your geological statements correct.

You still have not addressed a single one of my points or questions.

This is now the third time of asking for those answers.

 

Is it your normal practice on joining someone else's grouping to immediately defy their rules?

List your questions.  For example:
1....
2 ...
3 ...

 

Since there is a clear question mark at the end of the quote, I take it as proof positive that you are refusing to discuss in good faith.

 

All my questions so far have been thus properly identified with such a question mark and each time your responses have been either non existant to to a different question I did not ask.

 

I find it particularly insulting when I explicitly said that I am not an expert on nuclear reactions and confined my questions to the geology, yet you called me a dunce and answered my geology questions in terms of nuclear reactions.

 

 

[swansont]

12 hours ago, serguei58 said:

It seems that bureaucrats have gathered here considering my dissertation for awarding me an academic degree.  Prove that, prove it ... .. Gentlemen, I repeat once again, I have put the work here so that you people who know physics can give an overall assessment of my work, point out possible errors and advise some other scientific schemes when implementing my idea  ...  If you do not understand what we are talking about, then how to show this work to geophysicists who do not have deep knowledge of the physical processes described by me ?????

Then, as I said previously break it down into individual steps, because you are introducing multiple hypotheses, each of which needs to be examined. There’s way too much to discuss in a single thread.

 

12 hours ago, serguei58 said:

I came to this forum to meet not only professionals, but also people with whom it is pleasant to talk, and I found pouty turkeys who are bursting with a sense of their own importance, like you.

People are giving you their time and attention. Perhaps you could act like they don’t owe you this, because they don’t.

Your proposal is a mish-mash of ideas that can’t be easily analyzed as a whole. It too easily invites distraction. It seems to me, that a failure at any point sinks the whole thing. So discussion of individual steps would be a far better approach. 

 

 

[Phi for All]

10 hours ago, serguei58 said:

My advice to you, do not look in the mirror and the image of the asshole will not haunt you.

!

Moderator Note

Since there's no science to discuss, and the OP can't be bothered with the rules, this thread is closed.