Which Process Occurs In A Controlled Fusion Reaction

Process naturally occurring in stars where atomic nucleons combine

Nuclear fusion is a reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei are combined to form one or more different diminutive nuclei and subatomic particles (neutrons or protons). The difference in mass betwixt the reactants and products is manifested as either the release or the assimilation of energy. This difference in mass arises due to the deviation in nuclear binding energy between the atomic nuclei earlier and after the reaction. Nuclear fusion is the process that powers active or main sequence stars and other high-magnitude stars, where large amounts of free energy are released.

A nuclear fusion process that produces atomic nuclei lighter than iron-56 or nickel-62 will generally release free energy. These elements have a relatively small mass and a relatively large binding energy per nucleon. Fusion of nuclei lighter than these releases free energy (an exothermic procedure), while the fusion of heavier nuclei results in free energy retained past the product nucleons, and the resulting reaction is endothermic. The contrary is true for the contrary procedure, called nuclear fission. Nuclear fusion uses lighter elements, such equally hydrogen and helium, which are in general more fusible; while the heavier elements, such as uranium, thorium and plutonium, are more fissionable. The extreme astrophysical event of a supernova can produce enough energy to fuse nuclei into elements heavier than iron.

History [edit]

In 1920, Arthur Eddington suggested hydrogen-helium fusion could be the main source of stellar energy. Breakthrough tunneling was discovered by Friedrich Hund in 1929, and soon afterwards Robert Atkinson and Fritz Houtermans used the measured masses of light elements to show that big amounts of energy could exist released by fusing small nuclei. Edifice on the early experiments in artificial nuclear transmutation by Patrick Blackett, laboratory fusion of hydrogen isotopes was accomplished by Mark Oliphant in 1932. In the remainder of that decade, the theory of the main wheel of nuclear fusion in stars was worked out by Hans Bethe. Research into fusion for military purposes began in the early 1940s equally part of the Manhattan Project. Cocky-sustaining nuclear fusion was first carried out on i Nov 1952, in the Ivy Mike hydrogen (thermonuclear) bomb test.

Research into developing controlled fusion inside fusion reactors has been ongoing since the 1940s, simply the technology is however in its development stage.

Procedure [edit]

The release of energy with the fusion of light elements is due to the coaction of ii opposing forces: the nuclear strength, which combines together protons and neutrons, and the Coulomb force, which causes protons to repel each other. Protons are positively charged and repel each other by the Coulomb force, but they can nonetheless stick together, demonstrating the being of another, short-range, force referred to as nuclear attraction.^[2] Low-cal nuclei (or nuclei smaller than iron and nickel) are sufficiently small and proton-poor allowing the nuclear forcefulness to overcome repulsion. This is because the nucleus is sufficiently pocket-sized that all nucleons feel the short-range attractive force at least every bit strongly as they experience the infinite-range Coulomb repulsion. Building up nuclei from lighter nuclei by fusion releases the actress free energy from the net attraction of particles. For larger nuclei, however, no energy is released, since the nuclear force is brusque-range and cannot proceed to human activity beyond longer nuclear length scales. Thus, free energy is non released with the fusion of such nuclei; instead, free energy is required as input for such processes.

Fusion powers stars and produces virtually all elements in a process called nucleosynthesis. The Dominicus is a main-sequence star, and, as such, generates its energy by nuclear fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium. In its core, the Lord's day fuses 620 one thousand thousand metric tons of hydrogen and makes 616 million metric tons of helium each second. The fusion of lighter elements in stars releases energy and the mass that ever accompanies it. For example, in the fusion of two hydrogen nuclei to course helium, 0.645% of the mass is carried away in the form of kinetic energy of an blastoff particle or other forms of free energy, such as electromagnetic radiation.^[3]

Information technology takes considerable energy to forcefulness nuclei to fuse, even those of the lightest element, hydrogen. When accelerated to high enough speeds, nuclei can overcome this electrostatic repulsion and be brought close enough such that the attractive nuclear force is greater than the repulsive Coulomb force. The strong force grows apace once the nuclei are close enough, and the fusing nucleons can essentially "fall" into each other and the upshot is fusion and net energy produced. The fusion of lighter nuclei, which creates a heavier nucleus and often a free neutron or proton, more often than not releases more energy than it takes to force the nuclei together; this is an exothermic procedure that tin can produce self-sustaining reactions.

Free energy released in most nuclear reactions is much larger than in chemical reactions, because the binding energy that holds a nucleus together is greater than the free energy that holds electrons to a nucleus. For example, the ionization energy gained by adding an electron to a hydrogen nucleus is xiii.half-dozen eV—less than one-millionth of the 17.6 MeV released in the deuterium–tritium (D–T) reaction shown in the side by side diagram. Fusion reactions accept an free energy density many times greater than nuclear fission; the reactions produce far greater free energy per unit of mass even though individual fission reactions are more often than not much more energetic than individual fusion ones, which are themselves millions of times more energetic than chemical reactions. Simply direct conversion of mass into energy, such as that acquired by the annihilatory collision of affair and antimatter, is more energetic per unit of mass than nuclear fusion. (The complete conversion of one gram of matter would release 9×10¹³ joules of energy.)

Inquiry into using fusion for the production of electricity has been pursued for over 60 years. Although controlled fusion is by and large manageable with current applied science (due east.g. fusors), successful accomplishment of economic fusion has been stymied by scientific and technological difficulties;^{[ which? ]} however, important progress has been made. At nowadays, controlled fusion reactions accept been unable to produce suspension-even (cocky-sustaining) controlled fusion.^[4] The 2 about advanced approaches for it are magnetic confinement (toroid designs) and inertial solitude (laser designs).

Workable designs for a toroidal reactor that theoretically will deliver 10 times more than fusion energy than the amount needed to heat plasma to the required temperatures are in development (run into ITER). The ITER facility is expected to stop its structure phase in 2025. Information technology will commencement commissioning the reactor that same year and initiate plasma experiments in 2025, only is not expected to begin full deuterium-tritium fusion until 2035.^[five]

Similarly, Canadian-based Full general Fusion, which is developing a magnetized target fusion nuclear energy system, aims to build its demonstration establish past 2025.^[half-dozen]

The US National Ignition Facility, which uses light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation-driven inertial confinement fusion, was designed with a goal of break-even fusion; the outset large-scale laser target experiments were performed in June 2009 and ignition experiments began in early 2011.^[7] ^[viii]

Nuclear fusion in stars [edit]

The CNO bike dominates in stars heavier than the Sun.

An important fusion process is the stellar nucleosynthesis that powers stars, including the Sun. In the 20th century, it was recognized that the free energy released from nuclear fusion reactions accounts for the longevity of stellar heat and calorie-free. The fusion of nuclei in a star, starting from its initial hydrogen and helium abundance, provides that energy and synthesizes new nuclei. Different reaction chains are involved, depending on the mass of the star (and therefore the pressure level and temperature in its core).

Around 1920, Arthur Eddington anticipated the discovery and mechanism of nuclear fusion processes in stars, in his paper The Internal Constitution of the Stars.^[9] ^[ten] At that fourth dimension, the source of stellar free energy was a complete mystery; Eddington correctly speculated that the source was fusion of hydrogen into helium, liberating enormous energy according to Einstein's equation $E = mc 2$ . This was a particularly remarkable evolution since at that time fusion and thermonuclear free energy had not yet been discovered, nor even that stars are largely equanimous of hydrogen (see metallicity). Eddington'south paper reasoned that:

The leading theory of stellar energy, the wrinkle hypothesis, should cause stars' rotation to visibly speed upwards due to conservation of athwart momentum. Just observations of Cepheid variable stars showed this was not happening.
The only other known plausible source of energy was conversion of matter to energy; Einstein had shown some years before that a small amount of matter was equivalent to a large corporeality of energy.
Francis Aston had also recently shown that the mass of a helium atom was well-nigh 0.8% less than the mass of the four hydrogen atoms which would, combined, form a helium cantlet (according to the then-prevailing theory of atomic construction which held atomic weight to be the distinguishing property betwixt elements; work by Henry Moseley and Antonius van den Broek would subsequently show that nucleic charge was the distinguishing belongings and that a helium nucleus, therefore, consisted of two hydrogen nuclei plus additional mass). This suggested that if such a combination could happen, it would release considerable free energy equally a byproduct.
If a star contained just 5% of fusible hydrogen, it would suffice to explain how stars got their free energy. (We at present know that most 'ordinary' stars contain far more than v% hydrogen.)
Farther elements might also exist fused, and other scientists had speculated that stars were the "crucible" in which low-cal elements combined to create heavy elements, but without more accurate measurements of their diminutive masses naught more than could be said at the fourth dimension.

All of these speculations were proven correct in the post-obit decades.

The primary source of solar free energy, and that of similar size stars, is the fusion of hydrogen to class helium (the proton–proton chain reaction), which occurs at a solar-core temperature of fourteen million kelvin. The net consequence is the fusion of four protons into one alpha particle, with the release of 2 positrons and ii neutrinos (which changes two of the protons into neutrons), and energy. In heavier stars, the CNO cycle and other processes are more important. As a star uses upwardly a substantial fraction of its hydrogen, it begins to synthesize heavier elements. The heaviest elements are synthesized past fusion that occurs when a more massive star undergoes a violent supernova at the finish of its life, a process known as supernova nucleosynthesis.

Requirements [edit]

A substantial free energy barrier of electrostatic forces must be overcome earlier fusion can occur. At large distances, two naked nuclei repel one another considering of the repulsive electrostatic forcefulness betwixt their positively charged protons. If two nuclei can be brought close plenty together, however, the electrostatic repulsion can exist overcome by the quantum effect in which nuclei can tunnel through coulomb forces.

When a nucleon such equally a proton or neutron is added to a nucleus, the nuclear forcefulness attracts it to all the other nucleons of the nucleus (if the atom is modest plenty), just primarily to its immediate neighbors due to the brusk range of the forcefulness. The nucleons in the interior of a nucleus have more neighboring nucleons than those on the surface. Since smaller nuclei take a larger surface-area-to-volume ratio, the bounden energy per nucleon due to the nuclear force generally increases with the size of the nucleus only approaches a limiting value respective to that of a nucleus with a diameter of nearly four nucleons. It is important to go on in listen that nucleons are breakthrough objects. So, for instance, since two neutrons in a nucleus are identical to each other, the goal of distinguishing 1 from the other, such as which one is in the interior and which is on the surface, is in fact meaningless, and the inclusion of quantum mechanics is therefore necessary for proper calculations.

The electrostatic strength, on the other hand, is an inverse-square strength, and so a proton added to a nucleus will feel an electrostatic repulsion from all the other protons in the nucleus. The electrostatic free energy per nucleon due to the electrostatic force thus increases without limit as nuclei atomic number grows.

The electrostatic force betwixt the positively charged nuclei is repulsive, just when the separation is small enough, the quantum effect will tunnel through the wall. Therefore, the prerequisite for fusion is that the two nuclei be brought close plenty together for a long enough time for quantum tunneling to deed.

The cyberspace consequence of the opposing electrostatic and strong nuclear forces is that the bounden energy per nucleon by and large increases with increasing size, up to the elements atomic number 26 and nickel, and then decreases for heavier nuclei. Eventually, the binding energy becomes negative and very heavy nuclei (all with more than 208 nucleons, respective to a diameter of about 6 nucleons) are non stable. The four most tightly bound nuclei, in decreasing order of binding energy per nucleon, are ⁶²
Ni
, ⁵⁸
Fe
, ⁵⁶
Fe
, and ^lx
Ni
.^[11] Even though the nickel isotope, ⁶²
Ni
, is more stable, the atomic number 26 isotope ⁵⁶
Fe
is an order of magnitude more common. This is due to the fact that in that location is no like shooting fish in a barrel fashion for stars to create ⁶²
Ni
through the alpha procedure.

An exception to this general trend is the helium-4 nucleus, whose binding energy is college than that of lithium, the next heavier element. This is because protons and neutrons are fermions, which according to the Pauli exclusion principle cannot exist in the same nucleus in exactly the aforementioned country. Each proton or neutron'due south energy state in a nucleus can conform both a spin up particle and a spin down particle. Helium-four has an anomalously large binding energy considering its nucleus consists of ii protons and ii neutrons (it is a doubly magic nucleus), and then all four of its nucleons can be in the basis land. Any additional nucleons would have to go into college energy states. Indeed, the helium-4 nucleus is so tightly bound that it is usually treated as a single quantum mechanical particle in nuclear physics, namely, the alpha particle.

The situation is like if two nuclei are brought together. Every bit they arroyo each other, all the protons in i nucleus repel all the protons in the other. Not until the two nuclei really come close enough for long enough so the strong nuclear force can take over (by way of tunneling) is the repulsive electrostatic forcefulness overcome. Consequently, even when the concluding free energy state is lower, there is a large free energy barrier that must first exist overcome. It is called the Coulomb barrier.

The Coulomb barrier is smallest for isotopes of hydrogen, as their nuclei contain only a single positive charge. A diproton is not stable, so neutrons must also exist involved, ideally in such a mode that a helium nucleus, with its extremely tight bounden, is 1 of the products.

Using deuterium–tritium fuel, the resulting energy barrier is about 0.ane MeV. In comparison, the energy needed to remove an electron from hydrogen is thirteen.6 eV. The (intermediate) outcome of the fusion is an unstable ⁵He nucleus, which immediately ejects a neutron with fourteen.one MeV. The recoil energy of the remaining ⁴He nucleus is 3.5 MeV, so the full free energy liberated is 17.half dozen MeV. This is many times more than what was needed to overcome the energy barrier.

The fusion reaction rate increases rapidly with temperature until it maximizes and so gradually drops off. The DT rate peaks at a lower temperature (about 70 keV, or 800 million kelvin) and at a higher value than other reactions usually considered for fusion energy.

The reaction cross section (σ) is a measure of the probability of a fusion reaction equally a role of the relative velocity of the 2 reactant nuclei. If the reactants have a distribution of velocities, eastward.one thousand. a thermal distribution, so it is useful to perform an average over the distributions of the product of cross-section and velocity. This average is called the 'reactivity', denoted $⟨ σv ⟩$ . The reaction charge per unit (fusions per book per time) is $⟨ σv ⟩$ times the production of the reactant number densities:

f=n_{1}n_{2}\langle \sigma v\rangle .

If a species of nuclei is reacting with a nucleus like itself, such as the DD reaction, then the product $n_{1}n_{ii}$ must exist replaced past $n^{ii}/2$ .

$\langle \sigma v\rangle$ increases from virtually zero at room temperatures up to meaningful magnitudes at temperatures of 10–100 keV. At these temperatures, well higher up typical ionization energies (13.6 eV in the hydrogen case), the fusion reactants exist in a plasma country.

The significance of $\langle \sigma 5\rangle$ as a role of temperature in a device with a item energy solitude fourth dimension is found by considering the Lawson benchmark. This is an extremely challenging barrier to overcome on Earth, which explains why fusion research has taken many years to accomplish the electric current advanced technical state.^[12]

Artificial fusion [edit]

Thermonuclear fusion [edit]

If affair is sufficiently heated (hence being plasma) and confined, fusion reactions may occur due to collisions with extreme thermal kinetic energies of the particles. Thermonuclear weapons produce what amounts to an uncontrolled release of fusion energy. Controlled thermonuclear fusion concepts utilise magnetic fields to confine the plasma.

Inertial confinement fusion [edit]

Inertial solitude fusion (ICF) is a method aimed at releasing fusion energy by heating and compressing a fuel target, typically a pellet containing deuterium and tritium.

Inertial electrostatic confinement [edit]

Inertial electrostatic confinement is a set of devices that use an electric field to rut ions to fusion conditions. The nearly well known is the fusor. Starting in 1999, a number of amateurs take been able to practise apprentice fusion using these homemade devices.^[13] ^[14] ^[15] ^[xvi] Other IEC devices include: the Polywell, MIX POPS^[17] and Marble concepts.^[18]

Beam-beam or beam-target fusion [edit]

Accelerator-based light-ion fusion is a technique using particle accelerators to accomplish particle kinetic energies sufficient to induce light-ion fusion reactions. Accelerating light ions is relatively easy, and can be done in an efficient manner—requiring simply a vacuum tube, a pair of electrodes, and a high-voltage transformer; fusion tin can be observed with as picayune every bit 10 kV between the electrodes. The system can be arranged to advance ions into a static fuel-infused target, known as axle-target fusion, or by accelerating 2 streams of ions towards each other, beam-beam fusion.

The fundamental problem with accelerator-based fusion (and with cold targets in full general) is that fusion cross sections are many orders of magnitude lower than Coulomb interaction cantankerous-sections. Therefore, the vast bulk of ions expend their energy emitting bremsstrahlung radiation and the ionization of atoms of the target. Devices referred to as sealed-tube neutron generators are specially relevant to this discussion. These small devices are miniature particle accelerators filled with deuterium and tritium gas in an arrangement that allows ions of those nuclei to exist accelerated against hydride targets, as well containing deuterium and tritium, where fusion takes place, releasing a flux of neutrons. Hundreds of neutron generators are produced annually for use in the petroleum industry where they are used in measurement equipment for locating and mapping oil reserves.

A number of attempts to recirculate the ions that "miss" collisions take been made over the years. 1 of the better-known attempts in the 1970s was Migma, which used a unique particle storage ring to capture ions into circular orbits and return them to the reaction expanse. Theoretical calculations made during funding reviews pointed out that the arrangement would have pregnant difficulty scaling up to contain plenty fusion fuel to exist relevant equally a power source. In the 1990s, a new arrangement using a field-reverse configuration (FRC) as the storage organization was proposed past Norman Rostoker and continues to be studied by TAE Technologies as of 2021^[update]. A closely related approach is to merge two FRC's rotating in opposite directions,^[nineteen] which is being actively studied by Helion Energy. Because these approaches all have ion energies well across the Coulomb barrier, they often propose the use of alternative fuel cycles similar p-¹¹B that are as well difficult to attempt using conventional approaches.^[20]

Muon-catalyzed fusion [edit]

Muon-catalyzed fusion is a fusion process that occurs at ordinary temperatures. It was studied in detail by Steven Jones in the early 1980s. Cyberspace energy production from this reaction has been unsuccessful because of the high energy required to create muons, their short 2.2 µs one-half-life, and the high chance that a muon will bind to the new alpha particle and thus stop catalyzing fusion.^[21]

Other principles [edit]

Some other confinement principles have been investigated.

Antimatter-initialized fusion uses small amounts of antimatter to trigger a tiny fusion explosion. This has been studied primarily in the context of making nuclear pulse propulsion, and pure fusion bombs feasible. This is not most condign a applied power source, due to the cost of manufacturing antimatter lone.
Pyroelectric fusion was reported in April 2005 past a team at UCLA. The scientists used a pyroelectric crystal heated from −34 to 7 °C (−29 to 45 °F), combined with a tungsten needle to produce an electric field of nigh 25 gigavolts per meter to ionize and advance deuterium nuclei into an erbium deuteride target. At the estimated energy levels,^[22] the D-D fusion reaction may occur, producing helium-three and a two.45 MeV neutron. Although it makes a useful neutron generator, the apparatus is not intended for ability generation since it requires far more free energy than information technology produces.^[23] ^[24] ^[25] ^[26] D-T fusion reactions have been observed with a tritiated erbium target.^[27]
Hybrid nuclear fusion-fission (hybrid nuclear power) is a proposed means of generating power by use of a combination of nuclear fusion and fission processes. The concept dates to the 1950s, and was briefly advocated by Hans Bethe during the 1970s, merely largely remained unexplored until a revival of involvement in 2009, due to the delays in the realization of pure fusion.^[28]
Project PACER, carried out at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in the mid-1970s, explored the possibility of a fusion ability system that would involve exploding small hydrogen bombs (fusion bombs) within an underground cavity. As an energy source, the system is the only fusion power organization that could exist demonstrated to work using existing applied science. Nonetheless it would as well crave a large, continuous supply of nuclear bombs, making the economic science of such a organisation rather questionable.
Bubble fusion as well called sonofusion was a proposed mechanism for achieving fusion via sonic cavitation which rose to prominence in the early 2000s. Subsequent attempts at replication failed and the master investigator, Rusi Taleyarkhan, was judged guilty of enquiry misconduct in 2008.^[29]

Important reactions [edit]

Stellar reaction bondage [edit]

At the temperatures and densities in stellar cores, the rates of fusion reactions are notoriously wearisome. For case, at solar core temperature (T ≈ 15 MK) and density (160 g/cmⁱⁱⁱ), the energy release rate is just 276 μW/cm³—about a quarter of the volumetric rate at which a resting human body generates estrus.^[xxx] Thus, reproduction of stellar core atmospheric condition in a lab for nuclear fusion power production is completely impractical. Because nuclear reaction rates depend on density also as temperature and well-nigh fusion schemes operate at relatively low densities, those methods are strongly dependent on higher temperatures. The fusion rate every bit a function of temperature (exp(−East/kT)), leads to the demand to achieve temperatures in terrestrial reactors 10–100 times higher than in stellar interiors: T ≈ 0.ane–ane.0×10⁹ K.

Criteria and candidates for terrestrial reactions [edit]

In artificial fusion, the primary fuel is not constrained to be protons and higher temperatures tin be used, and so reactions with larger cross-sections are chosen. Some other business concern is the production of neutrons, which actuate the reactor structure radiologically, but also have the advantages of allowing volumetric extraction of the fusion energy and tritium convenance. Reactions that release no neutrons are referred to as aneutronic.

To be a useful energy source, a fusion reaction must satisfy several criteria. Information technology must:

Exist exothermic: This limits the reactants to the depression Z (number of protons) side of the curve of binding energy. It also makes helium ⁴
He
the most common production because of its extraordinarily tight binding, although ³
He
and ³
H
likewise show up.
Involve low atomic number (Z) nuclei: This is because the electrostatic repulsion that must be overcome before the nuclei are shut plenty to fuse is straight related to the number of protons it contains - its diminutive number.^{[ commendation needed ]}
Accept ii reactants: At annihilation less than stellar densities, three-body collisions are also improbable. In inertial confinement, both stellar densities and temperatures are exceeded to compensate for the shortcomings of the third parameter of the Lawson criterion, ICF's very short confinement time.
Accept two or more products: This allows simultaneous conservation of free energy and momentum without relying on the electromagnetic forcefulness.
Conserve both protons and neutrons: The cross sections for the weak interaction are too small.

Few reactions meet these criteria. The following are those with the largest cantankerous sections:^[31] ^[32]

(1)

²
_i D

^three
₁ T

→

⁴
₂ He

(

iii.52 MeV

)

due north⁰

(

14.06 MeV

)

(2i)

²
₁ D

^two
_one D

→

³
_ane T

(

1.01 MeV

)

p⁺

(

3.02 MeV

)

fifty%

(2ii)

→

³
₂ He

(

0.82 MeV

)

north⁰

(

2.45 MeV

)

50%

(3)

^two
_i D

ⁱⁱⁱ
₂ He

→

⁴
_two He

(

3.6 MeV

)

p⁺

(

14.7 MeV

)

(4)

³
_ane T

³
₁ T

→

^iv
₂ He

2 n⁰

xi.iii MeV

(5)

^three
₂ He

³
₂ He

→

^four
₂ He

2 p⁺

12.ix MeV

(6i)

³
₂ He

³
₁ T

→

^iv
₂ He

p⁺

n⁰

12.one MeV

57%

(6ii)

→

^iv
₂ He

(

4.eight MeV

)

²
₁ D

(

9.v MeV

)

43%

(7i)

^two
₁ D

⁶
₃ Li

→

ii ⁴
_two He

22.iv MeV

(7ii)

→

ⁱⁱⁱ
_ii He

⁴
₂ He

n⁰

2.56 MeV

(7iii)

→

⁷
₃ Li

p⁺

5.0 MeV

(7iv)

→

⁷
_four Be

northward⁰

3.4 MeV

(8)

p⁺

^{half dozen}
_iii Li

→

⁴
₂ He

(

1.seven MeV

)

³
₂ He

(

2.3 MeV

)

(9)

³
₂ He

^half-dozen
_three Li

→

ii ^four
₂ He

p⁺

16.9 MeV

(10)

p⁺

¹¹
₅ B

→

3 ⁴
₂ He

8.vii MeV

For reactions with two products, the free energy is divided between them in changed proportion to their masses, as shown. In most reactions with iii products, the distribution of energy varies. For reactions that can upshot in more than than i set of products, the branching ratios are given.

Some reaction candidates tin be eliminated at once. The D-^sixLi reaction has no advantage compared to p⁺- ^xi
_v B
because it is roughly as difficult to burn merely produces substantially more than neutrons through ²
₁ D
- ⁱⁱ
₁ D
side reactions. At that place is as well a p⁺- ^vii
_iii Li
reaction, but the cantankerous section is far too depression, except possibly when T _i > 1 MeV, but at such high temperatures an endothermic, straight neutron-producing reaction also becomes very meaning. Finally there is also a p⁺- ^ix
₄ Be
reaction, which is not but difficult to burn, only ⁹
_four Exist
can be easily induced to separate into two alpha particles and a neutron.

In addition to the fusion reactions, the following reactions with neutrons are of import in club to "brood" tritium in "dry" fusion bombs and some proposed fusion reactors:

north⁰	+	^{half dozen} _three Li	→	^three ₁ T	+	^four _ii He + 4.784 MeV
northward⁰	+	^vii _three Li	→	³ _ane T	+	^four ₂ He + n⁰ – two.467 MeV

The latter of the two equations was unknown when the U.S. conducted the Castle Bravo fusion flop examination in 1954. Being just the 2d fusion flop ever tested (and the start to apply lithium), the designers of the Castle Bravo "Shrimp" had understood the usefulness of ^half-dozenLi in tritium production, but had failed to recognize that ⁷Li fission would greatly increase the yield of the bomb. While ⁷Li has a pocket-sized neutron cross-department for low neutron energies, it has a college cross section above 5 MeV.^[33] The 15 Mt yield was 250% greater than the predicted 6 Mt and caused unexpected exposure to fallout.

To evaluate the usefulness of these reactions, in improver to the reactants, the products, and the energy released, one needs to know something near the nuclear cantankerous section. Any given fusion device has a maximum plasma pressure information technology can sustain, and an economical device would ever operate virtually this maximum. Given this pressure, the largest fusion output is obtained when the temperature is called so that $⟨ σv ⟩/ T 2$ is a maximum. This is too the temperature at which the value of the triple product $nTτ$ required for ignition is a minimum, since that required value is inversely proportional to $⟨ σv ⟩/ T 2$ (run across Lawson criterion). (A plasma is "ignited" if the fusion reactions produce enough ability to maintain the temperature without external heating.) This optimum temperature and the value of $⟨ σv ⟩/ T 2$ at that temperature is given for a few of these reactions in the following tabular array.

fuel	T [keV]	$⟨ σv ⟩/ T ii$ [m^three/s/keV²]
² ₁ D - ^three _i T	13.6	i.24×10⁻²⁴
² _one D - ² ₁ D	15	ane.28×10⁻²⁶
ⁱⁱ _one D - ³ ₂ He	58	2.24×10⁻²⁶
p⁺- ^six _three Li	66	1.46×ten⁻²⁷
p⁺- ¹¹ _v B	123	3.01×ten⁻²⁷

Note that many of the reactions form chains. For instance, a reactor fueled with ³
_one T
and ³
_ii He
creates some ²
₁ D
, which is so possible to use in the ²
₁ D
- ³
₂ He
reaction if the energies are "right". An elegant idea is to combine the reactions (8) and (9). The ³
₂ He
from reaction (eight) can react with ⁶
₃ Li
in reaction (9) earlier completely thermalizing. This produces an energetic proton, which in turn undergoes reaction (8) before thermalizing. Detailed analysis shows that this idea would not work well,^{[ citation needed ]} but it is a good example of a case where the usual assumption of a Maxwellian plasma is not appropriate.

Neutronicity, confinement requirement, and power density [edit]

Any of the reactions above can in principle be the footing of fusion power product. In add-on to the temperature and cross section discussed in a higher place, we must consider the total energy of the fusion products Eastward _fus, the free energy of the charged fusion products E _ch, and the diminutive number Z of the non-hydrogenic reactant.

Specification of the ^two
₁ D
- ²
_one D
reaction entails some difficulties, though. To brainstorm with, one must average over the 2 branches (2i) and (2ii). More difficult is to decide how to care for the ⁱⁱⁱ
_ane T
and ^three
_ii He
products. ⁱⁱⁱ
_i T
burns and then well in a deuterium plasma that it is about impossible to extract from the plasma. The ²
₁ D
- ^three
₂ He
reaction is optimized at a much higher temperature, so the burnup at the optimum ²
₁ D
- ^two
₁ D
temperature may exist depression. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume the ⁱⁱⁱ
₁ T
but non the ³
₂ He
gets burned up and adds its energy to the net reaction, which means the total reaction would be the sum of (2i), (2ii), and (i):

5 ²
_i D
→ ^four
₂ He
+ 2 n⁰ + ³
₂ He
+ p⁺, Eastward _fus = 4.03+17.6+3.27 = 24.ix MeV, E _ch = iv.03+3.5+0.82 = viii.35 MeV.

For computing the power of a reactor (in which the reaction charge per unit is adamant past the D-D step), nosotros count the ^two
₁ D
- ²
₁ D
fusion energy per D-D reaction as E _fus = (4.03 MeV + 17.6 MeV)×50% + (iii.27 MeV)×50% = 12.5 MeV and the energy in charged particles as E _ch = (4.03 MeV + iii.5 MeV)×50% + (0.82 MeV)×50% = 4.2 MeV. (Notation: if the tritium ion reacts with a deuteron while it all the same has a large kinetic energy, then the kinetic energy of the helium-4 produced may be quite different from 3.5 MeV,^[34] so this calculation of energy in charged particles is only an approximation of the average.) The amount of energy per deuteron consumed is 2/v of this, or 5.0 MeV (a specific energy of about 225 1000000 MJ per kilogram of deuterium).

Some other unique aspect of the ²
₁ D
- ^two
₁ D
reaction is that at that place is but ane reactant, which must be taken into account when calculating the reaction charge per unit.

With this pick, we tabulate parameters for four of the most of import reactions

fuel	Z	E _fus [MeV]	E _ch [MeV]	neutronicity
² _i D - ³ ₁ T	1	17.6	3.five	0.80
ⁱⁱ ₁ D - ⁱⁱ _one D	i	12.5	4.2	0.66
² ₁ D - ^three _ii He	2	18.3	eighteen.3	≈0.05
p⁺- ¹¹ ₅ B	five	8.7	viii.7	≈0.001

The terminal column is the neutronicity of the reaction, the fraction of the fusion energy released as neutrons. This is an important indicator of the magnitude of the problems associated with neutrons like radiation impairment, biological shielding, remote treatment, and safety. For the first 2 reactions it is calculated as (E _fus-E _ch)/E _fus. For the final two reactions, where this calculation would give zero, the values quoted are rough estimates based on side reactions that produce neutrons in a plasma in thermal equilibrium.

Of course, the reactants should too be mixed in the optimal proportions. This is the instance when each reactant ion plus its associated electrons accounts for half the pressure level. Bold that the full pressure is stock-still, this means that particle density of the non-hydrogenic ion is smaller than that of the hydrogenic ion by a factor 2/(Z+1). Therefore, the rate for these reactions is reduced by the aforementioned gene, on elevation of any differences in the values of $⟨ σv ⟩/ T 2$ . On the other paw, because the ²
₁ D
- ²
₁ D
reaction has but i reactant, its rate is twice as high equally when the fuel is divided between two different hydrogenic species, thus creating a more than efficient reaction.

Thus in that location is a "punishment" of (2/(Z+1)) for non-hydrogenic fuels arising from the fact that they crave more than electrons, which have up force per unit area without participating in the fusion reaction. (Information technology is normally a good assumption that the electron temperature will be nearly equal to the ion temperature. Some authors, however, hash out the possibility that the electrons could be maintained substantially colder than the ions. In such a case, known as a "hot ion mode", the "penalty" would not apply.) At that place is at the aforementioned time a "bonus" of a gene two for ²
_i D
- ²
_ane D
because each ion can react with any of the other ions, not merely a fraction of them.

Nosotros can at present compare these reactions in the post-obit table.

fuel	$⟨ σv ⟩/ T 2$	penalty/bonus	inverse reactivity	Lawson criterion	power density (W/m³/kPa²)	changed ratio of power density
² ₁ D - ³ ₁ T	ane.24×ten⁻²⁴	1	1	1	34	1
² _ane D - ⁱⁱ _one D	one.28×10⁻²⁶	2	48	30	0.5	68
² ₁ D - ³ ₂ He	2.24×10⁻²⁶	two/three	83	16	0.43	fourscore
p⁺- ⁶ _three Li	one.46×10⁻²⁷	1/2	1700		0.005	6800
p⁺- ¹¹ ₅ B	three.01×10⁻²⁷	one/3	1240	500	0.014	2500

The maximum value of $⟨ σv ⟩/ T 2$ is taken from a previous tabular array. The "penalization/bonus" factor is that related to a non-hydrogenic reactant or a single-species reaction. The values in the column "inverse reactivity" are found past dividing 1.24×10⁻²⁴ past the product of the second and 3rd columns. It indicates the factor by which the other reactions occur more slowly than the ²
₁ D
- ³
₁ T
reaction under comparable conditions. The column "Lawson benchmark" weights these results with E _ch and gives an indication of how much more than hard it is to reach ignition with these reactions, relative to the difficulty for the ²
₁ D
- ³
_i T
reaction. The next-to-terminal column is labeled "ability density" and weights the practical reactivity past East _fus. The last column indicates how much lower the fusion power density of the other reactions is compared to the ²
₁ D
- ³
_i T
reaction and can exist considered a measure of the economic potential.

Bremsstrahlung losses in quasineutral, isotropic plasmas [edit]

The ions undergoing fusion in many systems will essentially never occur alone but will be mixed with electrons that in aggregate neutralize the ions' bulk electrical charge and form a plasma. The electrons will generally take a temperature comparable to or greater than that of the ions, so they will collide with the ions and emit x-ray radiation of 10–30 keV energy, a process known every bit Bremsstrahlung.

The huge size of the Sun and stars means that the x-rays produced in this procedure volition not escape and will deposit their energy back into the plasma. They are said to be opaque to x-rays. Just any terrestrial fusion reactor will exist optically thin for ten-rays of this free energy range. X-rays are hard to reflect but they are effectively absorbed (and converted into heat) in less than mm thickness of stainless steel (which is office of a reactor's shield). This means the bremsstrahlung process is carrying energy out of the plasma, cooling it.

The ratio of fusion power produced to x-ray radiations lost to walls is an important effigy of merit. This ratio is by and large maximized at a much higher temperature than that which maximizes the power density (meet the previous subsection). The post-obit table shows estimates of the optimum temperature and the power ratio at that temperature for several reactions:

fuel	T _i (keV)	P _fusion/P _{Bremsstrahlung}
ⁱⁱ ₁ D - ⁱⁱⁱ ₁ T	fifty	140
^two ₁ D - ² _one D	500	2.9
² _i D - ^three _two He	100	5.iii
³ ₂ He - ³ _ii He	1000	0.72
p⁺- ⁶ ₃ Li	800	0.21
p⁺- ^eleven ₅ B	300	0.57

The actual ratios of fusion to Bremsstrahlung ability will likely exist significantly lower for several reasons. For i, the calculation assumes that the energy of the fusion products is transmitted completely to the fuel ions, which then lose free energy to the electrons by collisions, which in turn lose energy by Bremsstrahlung. Still, because the fusion products move much faster than the fuel ions, they volition requite up a significant fraction of their energy direct to the electrons. Secondly, the ions in the plasma are assumed to be purely fuel ions. In do, there will be a significant proportion of impurity ions, which will then lower the ratio. In particular, the fusion products themselves must remain in the plasma until they accept given up their free energy, and will remain for some time subsequently that in any proposed solitude scheme. Finally, all channels of energy loss other than Bremsstrahlung accept been neglected. The last two factors are related. On theoretical and experimental grounds, particle and free energy confinement seem to exist closely related. In a confinement scheme that does a good job of retaining energy, fusion products will build upwards. If the fusion products are efficiently ejected, so free energy solitude will be poor, too.

The temperatures maximizing the fusion ability compared to the Bremsstrahlung are in every case higher than the temperature that maximizes the power density and minimizes the required value of the fusion triple production. This will not change the optimum operating indicate for ²
₁ D
- ³
₁ T
very much because the Bremsstrahlung fraction is low, just it volition push the other fuels into regimes where the power density relative to ⁱⁱ
₁ D
- ³
₁ T
is even lower and the required confinement even more than difficult to achieve. For ²
_ane D
- ²
₁ D
and ²
₁ D
- ³
_two He
, Bremsstrahlung losses will be a serious, maybe prohibitive problem. For ³
_ii He
- ^three
₂ He
, p⁺- ^{half dozen}
_three Li
and p⁺- ¹¹
₅ B
the Bremsstrahlung losses appear to make a fusion reactor using these fuels with a quasineutral, isotropic plasma incommunicable. Some ways out of this dilemma have been considered but rejected.^[35] ^[36] This limitation does not apply to non-neutral and anisotropic plasmas; however, these have their own challenges to argue with.

Mathematical description of cantankerous section [edit]

Fusion under classical physics [edit]

In a classical picture, nuclei can be understood as hard spheres that repel each other through the Coulomb forcefulness simply fuse once the two spheres come close enough for contact. Estimating the radius of an diminutive nuclei every bit nearly one femtometer, the energy needed for fusion of ii hydrogen is:

E_{\ce {thresh}}={\frac {i}{iv\pi \epsilon _{0}}}{\frac {Z_{ane}Z_{ii}}{r}}{\ce {->[{\text{2 protons}}]}}{\frac {1}{iv\pi \epsilon _{0}}}{\frac {due east^{ii}}{1\ {\ce {fm}}}}\approx 1.iv\ {\ce {MeV}}

This would imply that for the core of the sun, which has a Boltzmann distribution with a temperature of around 1.iv keV, the probability hydrogen would reach the threshold is $10^{-290}$ , that is, fusion would never occur. All the same, fusion in the sun does occur due to quantum mechanics.

Parameterization of cross department [edit]

The probability that fusion occurs is profoundly increased compared to the classical picture, thanks to the smearing of the effective radius as the DeBroglie wavelength as well as quantum tunnelling through the potential barrier. To determine the rate of fusion reactions, the value of virtually interest is the cantankerous section, which describes the probability that particles volition fuse by giving a characteristic area of interaction. An estimation of the fusion cross-sectional area is often broken into three pieces:

\sigma \approx \sigma _{geometry}\times T\times R

Where $\sigma _{geometry}$ is the geometric cross department, $T$ is the barrier transparency and $R$ is the reaction characteristics of the reaction.

$\sigma _{geometry}$ is of the order of the foursquare of the de-Broglie wavelength $\sigma _{geometry}\approx \lambda ^{2}={\bigg (}{\frac {\hbar }{m_{r}v}}{\bigg )}^{two}\propto {\frac {1}{\epsilon }}$ where $m_{r}$ is the reduced mass of the system and $\epsilon$ is the center of mass free energy of the organization.

$T$ can be approximated past the Gamow transparency, which has the grade: $T\approx e^{-{\sqrt {\epsilon _{K}/\epsilon }}}$ where $\epsilon _{Grand}=(\pi \alpha Z_{one}Z_{2})^{two}\times 2m_{r}c^{ii}$ is the Gamow factor and comes from estimating the quantum tunneling probability through the potential barrier.

$R$ contains all the nuclear physics of the specific reaction and takes very unlike values depending on the nature of the interaction. However, for most reactions, the variation of $R(\epsilon )$ is small compared to the variation from the Gamow cistron and so is approximated past a function called the Astrophysical S-gene, $S(\epsilon )$ , which is weakly varying in energy. Putting these dependencies together, one approximation for the fusion cantankerous section as a role of free energy takes the course:

\sigma (\epsilon )\approx {\frac {Due south(\epsilon )}{\epsilon }}due east^{-{\sqrt {\epsilon _{G}/\epsilon }}}

More than detailed forms of the cross-section can exist derived through nuclear physics-based models and R-matrix theory.

Formulas of fusion cantankerous sections [edit]

The Naval Research Lab's plasma physics formulary^[37] gives the total cross department in barns as a function of the energy (in keV) of the incident particle towards a target ion at residuum fit by the formula:

\sigma ^{\text{NRL}}(\epsilon )={\frac {A_{5}+{\big (}(A_{4}-A_{three}\epsilon )^{2}+1{\big )}^{-1}A_{2}}{\epsilon (due east^{A_{1}\epsilon ^{-ane/two}}-1)}}

with the following coefficient values:

NRL Formulary Cantankerous Section Coefficients
	DT(1)	DD(2i)	DD(2ii)	DHe³(3)	TT(4)	THe³(6)
A1	45.95	46.097	47.88	89.27	38.39	123.one
A2	50200	372	482	25900	448	11250
A3	1.368×ten^−two	4.36×x⁻⁴	3.08×10⁻⁴	3.98×x⁻³	1.02×10^−three	0
A4	1.076	1.22	one.177	1.297	ii.09	0
A5	409	0	0	647	0	0

Bosch-Hale^[38] as well reports a R-matrix calculated cross sections plumbing fixtures ascertainment data with Padé rational approximating coefficients. With energy in units of keV and cross sections in units of millibarn, the factor has the form:

S^{\text{Bosch-Hale}}(\epsilon )={\frac {A_{one}+\epsilon {\bigg (}A_{two}+\epsilon {\big (}A_{iii}+\epsilon (A_{four}+\epsilon A_{v}){\big )}{\bigg )}}{1+\epsilon {\bigg (}B_{1}+\epsilon {\large (}B_{2}+\epsilon (B_{3}+\epsilon B_{four}){\big )}{\bigg )}}}

, with the coefficient values:

Bosch-Hale coefficients for the fusion cantankerous department
	DT(1)	DD(2ii)	DHe³(3)	THe^four
$\epsilon _{G}$	31.3970	68.7508	31.3970	34.3827
A1	5.5576×10^four	5.7501×10⁶	5.3701×x⁴	half dozen.927×ten⁴
A2	2.1054×10²	2.5226×10³	three.3027×10²	7.454×10⁸
A3	−iii.2638×x⁻²	iv.5566×10^one	−1.2706×10^−ane	two.050×10^six
A4	1.4987×10^{−half dozen}	0	2.9327×ten^−five	5.2002×10^four
A5	1.8181×ten^−ten	0	−ii.5151×10^−ix	0
B1	0	−3.1995×x⁻ⁱⁱⁱ	0	half dozen.38×10¹
B2	0	−8.5530×10^−vi	0	−ix.95×10⁻¹
B3	0	5.9014×x⁻⁸	0	6.981×10⁻⁵
B4	0	0	0	ane.728×10⁻⁴
Applicable Energy Range [keV]	0.5-5000	0.3-900	0.v-4900	0.v-550
$(\Delta S)_{\text{max}}\%$	ii.0	ii.two	two.v	ane.nine

where $\sigma ^{\text{Bosch-Hale}}(\epsilon )={\frac {South^{\text{Bosch-Hale}}(\epsilon )}{\epsilon \exp(\epsilon _{G}/{\sqrt {\epsilon }})}}$

Maxwell-averaged nuclear cross sections [edit]

In fusion systems that are in thermal equilibrium, the particles are in a Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution, meaning the particles have a range of energies centered around the plasma temperature. The sunday, magnetically confined plasmas and inertial confinement fusion systems are well modeled to exist in thermal equilibrium. In these cases, the value of interest is the fusion cross-section averaged across the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. The Naval Research Lab'southward plasma physics formulary tabulates Maxwell averaged fusion cross sections reactivities in $\mathrm {cm^{3}/sec}$ .

NRL Formulary fusion reaction rates averaged over Maxwellian distributions
Temperature [keV]	DT(ane)	DD(2ii)	DHe³(3)	TT(four)	The³(6)
1	v.v×10⁻²¹	1.5×x⁻²²	1.0×10⁻²⁶	3.three×ten⁻²²	ane.0×10⁻²⁸
2	2.6×ten⁻¹⁹	5.4×x⁻²¹	ane.4×x⁻²³	7.1×10⁻²¹	i.0×ten⁻²⁵
5	ane.3×10⁻¹⁷	ane.8×10^−xix	6.vii×10⁻²¹	ane.four×ten⁻¹⁹	2.1×10⁻²²
10	one.1×10^−xvi	1.2×10⁻¹⁸	two.iii×10⁻¹⁹	7.2×10⁻¹⁹	1.2×x⁻²⁰
twenty	four.2×10⁻¹⁶	five.2×10⁻¹⁸	three.viii×10^−eighteen	two.5×10⁻¹⁸	2.vi×10⁻¹⁹
50	8.7×x⁻¹⁶	2.1×x⁻¹⁷	5.four×10⁻¹⁷	8.vii×x⁻¹⁸	5.3×x⁻¹⁸
100	eight.5×10^−xvi	4.5×10⁻¹⁷	1.6×ten⁻¹⁶	1.9×10⁻¹⁷	2.7×10⁻¹⁷
200	6.iii×10⁻¹⁶	8.8×10⁻¹⁷	ii.four×10⁻¹⁶	4.two×10⁻¹⁷	9.2×10⁻¹⁷
500	3.7×10^−xvi	1.eight×10⁻¹⁶	2.three×10⁻¹⁶	8.iv×x⁻¹⁷	two.9×10⁻¹⁶
1000	2.7×10^−sixteen	two.2×10^−xvi	ane.8×ten⁻¹⁶	8.0×10⁻¹⁷	v.ii×10⁻¹⁶

For energies $T\leq 25{\text{ keV}}$ the data tin be represented past:

({\overline {\sigma v}})_{DD}=two.33\times ten^{-fourteen}\cdot T^{-2/3}\cdot e^{-xviii.76T^{-1/3}}{{\text{ cm}}^{three}}/{\text{sec}}

({\overline {\sigma v}})_{DT}=3.68\times 10^{-12}\cdot T^{-ii/3}\cdot e^{-19.94T^{-1/3}}{{\text{ cm}}^{3}}/{\text{sec}}

with $T$ in units of keV.

Run into also [edit]

China Fusion Engineering Test Reactor
Cold fusion
Focus fusion
Fusenet
Fusion rocket
Impulse generator
Articulation European Torus
List of fusion experiments
List of Fusor examples
List of plasma (physics) articles
Neutron source
Nuclear energy
Nuclear fusion–fission hybrid
Nuclear physics
Nuclear reactor
Nucleosynthesis
Periodic table
Pulsed power
Teller–Ulam design
Thermonuclear fusion
Timeline of nuclear fusion
Triple-alpha procedure

References [edit]

^ Shultis, J.K. & Faw, R.E. (2002). Fundamentals of nuclear science and engineering. CRC Printing. p. 151. ISBN978-0-8247-0834-4.
^ Physics Flexbook Archived 28 December 2011 at the Wayback Machine. Ck12.org. Retrieved 19 Dec 2012.
^ Bethe, Hans A. (April 1950). "The Hydrogen Bomb". Message of the Atomic Scientists. 6 (4): 99–104, 125–. Bibcode:1950BuAtS...6d..99B. doi:10.1080/00963402.1950.11461231.
^ "Progress in Fusion". ITER. Retrieved 15 Feb 2010.
^ "ITER – the mode to new energy". ITER. 2014. Archived from the original on 22 September 2012.
^ Boyle, Alan (16 Dec 2019). "Full general Fusion gets a $65M boost for fusion power constitute from investors – including Jeff Bezos". GeekWire.
^ Moses, E. I. (2009). "The National Ignition Facility: Ushering in a new age for high free energy density science". Physics of Plasmas. 16 (4): 041006. Bibcode:2009PhPl...16d1006M. doi:10.1063/ane.3116505.
^ Kramer, David (March 2011). "DOE looks again at inertial fusion as potential make clean-energy source". Physics Today. 64 (3): 26–28. Bibcode:2011PhT....64c..26K. doi:10.1063/1.3563814.
^ Eddington, A. S. (October 1920). "The Internal Constitution of the Stars". The Scientific Monthly. 11 (iv): 297–303. Bibcode:1920Sci....52..233E. doi:10.1126/science.52.1341.233. JSTOR 6491. PMID 17747682.
^ Eddington, A. S. (1916). "On the radiative equilibrium of the stars". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 77: sixteen–35. Bibcode:1916MNRAS..77...16E. doi:ten.1093/mnras/77.1.16.
^ The Most Tightly Bound Nuclei. Hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu. Retrieved 17 August 2011.
^ Study, Science World (23 March 2013). "What Is The Lawson Criteria, Or How to Make Fusion Power Viable". Science World Study.
^ "Fusor Forums • Index page". Fusor.internet. Retrieved 24 August 2014.
^ "Build a Nuclear Fusion Reactor? No Problem". Clhsonline.net. 23 March 2012. Archived from the original on thirty October 2014. Retrieved 24 Baronial 2014.
^ Danzico, Matthew (23 June 2010). "Farthermost DIY: Building a bootleg nuclear reactor in NYC". Retrieved xxx Oct 2014.
^ Schechner, Sam (18 August 2008). "Nuclear Ambitions: Amateur Scientists Get a Reaction From Fusion". The Wall Street Journal . Retrieved 24 August 2014.
^ Park J, Nebel RA, Stange S, Murali SK (2005). "Experimental Observation of a Periodically Oscillating Plasma Sphere in a Gridded Inertial Electrostatic Confinement Device". Phys Rev Lett. 95 (one): 015003. Bibcode:2005PhRvL..95a5003P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.015003. PMID 16090625.
^ "The Multiple Ambipolar Recirculating Axle Line Experiment" Poster presentation, 2011 Us-Japan IEC conference, Dr. Alex Klein
^ J. Slough, G. Votroubek, and C. Pihl, "Creation of a high-temperature plasma through merging and compression of supersonic field reversed configuration plasmoids" Nucl. Fusion 51,053008 (2011).
^ A. Asle Zaeem et al "Aneutronic Fusion in Collision of Oppositely Directed Plasmoids" Plasma Physics Reports, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 378–386 (2018).
^ Jones, Southward.Eastward. (1986). "Muon-Catalysed Fusion Revisited". Nature. 321 (6066): 127–133. Bibcode:1986Natur.321..127J. doi:10.1038/321127a0. S2CID 39819102.
^ Supplementary methods for "Ascertainment of nuclear fusion driven by a pyroelectric crystal". Main article Naranjo, B.; Gimzewski, J.Chiliad.; Putterman, S. (2005). "Ascertainment of nuclear fusion driven past a pyroelectric crystal". Nature. 434 (7037): 1115–1117. Bibcode:2005Natur.434.1115N. doi:10.1038/nature03575. PMID 15858570. S2CID 4407334.
^ UCLA Crystal Fusion. Rodan.physics.ucla.edu. Retrieved 17 Baronial 2011. Archived 8 June 2015 at the Wayback Auto
^ Schewe, Phil & Stein, Ben (2005). "Pyrofusion: A Room-Temperature, Palm-Sized Nuclear Fusion Device". Physics News Update. 729 (1). Archived from the original on 12 November 2013.
^ Coming in out of the cold: nuclear fusion, for real. The Christian Science Monitor. (half-dozen June 2005). Retrieved 17 August 2011.
^ Nuclear fusion on the desktop ... really!. MSNBC (27 April 2005). Retrieved 17 August 2011.
^ Naranjo, B.; Putterman, Southward.; Venhaus, T. (2011). "Pyroelectric fusion using a tritiated target". Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Enquiry Department A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment. 632 (1): 43–46. Bibcode:2011NIMPA.632...43N. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2010.08.003.
^ Gerstner, Due east. (2009). "Nuclear energy: The hybrid returns". Nature. 460 (7251): 25–28. doi:10.1038/460025a. PMID 19571861.
^ Maugh Two, Thomas. "Physicist is establish guilty of misconduct". Los Angeles Times . Retrieved 17 April 2019.
^ FusEdWeb | Fusion Educational activity. Fusedweb.pppl.gov (nine November 1998). Retrieved 17 Baronial 2011. Archived 24 October 2007 at the Wayback Machine
^ M. Kikuchi, K. Lackner & G. Q. Tran (2012). Fusion Physics. International Atomic Energy Agency. p. 22. ISBN9789201304100.
^ Chiliad. Miyamoto (2005). Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion. Springer-Verlag. ISBN3-540-24217-1.
^ Subsection 4.7.4c Archived sixteen August 2018 at the Wayback Machine. Kayelaby.npl.co.united kingdom. Retrieved nineteen December 2012.
^ A momentum and energy balance shows that if the tritium has an energy of East_T (and using relative masses of i, iii, and 4 for the neutron, tritium, and helium) then the energy of the helium can exist anything from [(12E_T)^one/2−(5×17.6MeV+2×E_T)^1/ii]²/25 to [(12E_T)^one/2+(5×17.6MeV+ii×E_T)^1/two]²/25. For E_T=1.01 MeV this gives a range from 1.44 MeV to vi.73 MeV.
^ Rider, Todd Harrison (1995). "Fundamental Limitations on Plasma Fusion Systems not in Thermodynamic Equilibrium". Dissertation Abstracts International. 56–07 (Section B): 3820. Bibcode:1995PhDT........45R.
^ Rostoker, Norman; Binderbauer, Michl and Qerushi, Artan. Central limitations on plasma fusion systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium. fusion.ps.uci.edu
^ Huba, J. (2003). "NRL PLASMA FORMULARY" (PDF). MIT Catalog . Retrieved eleven November 2018.
^ Bosch, H. Due south (1993). "Improved formulas for fusion cross-sections and thermal reactivities". Nuclear Fusion. 32 (4): 611–631. doi:10.1088/0029-5515/32/4/I07. S2CID 55303621.

External links [edit]

NuclearFiles.org – A repository of documents related to nuclear power.
Annotated bibliography for nuclear fusion from the Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Problems
NRL Fusion Formulary