Is There a Better Route to Fusion?

Todd H. Rider
[email protected]

April 1, 2005

“Thirty-five years ago I was an expert precious-metal quartz-miner. There

was an outcrop in my neighborhood that assayed $600 a ton—gold. But
every fleck of gold in it was shut up tight and fast in an intractable and
impersuadable base-metal shell. Acting as a Consensus, I delivered the
finality verdict that no human ingenuity would ever be able to set free two
dollars’ worth of gold out of a ton of that rock. The fact is, I did not
foresee the cyanide process… These sorrows have made me suspicious
of Consensuses… I sheer warily off and get behind something, saying to
myself, ‘It looks innocent and all right, but no matter, ten to one there’s a
cyanide process under that thing somewhere.’”

-Mark Twain, “Dr. Loeb’s Incredible Discovery” (1910)

THR-1
4/1/05
 Motivation

Three Mile Island

ITER

Current fission power Current fusion power

approaches are not ideal approaches are not ideal
• Politically incorrect amount • Also quite radioactive and more
of radioactivity expensive than fission reactors
(>$5B for ITER)
• Conventional reactors are
very expensive (>$1B each) • Still decades in the future after
over half a century of work

Ë We will try to “rederive” fusion power from first principles,

looking for better approaches at each step along the way.
THR-2
4/1/05
 Wish List of Characteristics
For the Perfect Nuclear Energy Source

• Little or no radiation and radioactive waste

• Minimal shielding
• Scalable to power everything from computer chips to GW reactors
• High-efficiency direct conversion to electricity
• Utilizes readily available fuel
• Cannot explode, melt down, or frighten Jane Fonda
• Not directly or indirectly useful to terrorists or unfriendly countries

Can we come closer to meeting these goals?

THR-3
4/1/05
 Nuclear vs. Chemical Energy
From Coulomb’s law: Atom From Heisenberg
~1 Å=10-10 m
e2 Nucleus
uncertainty principle:
E ~
4peor e- e-
(Dp) (Dx) ~ h

14.4 eV
= (Dp)2 h2
r [in Å] E ~ =
2m 2m(Dx)2
Enucl ratom
~ ~ 105 n
2
Echem rnucl p+ p+ Enucl me ratom
~ ~ 106
(Valid since strong force ~ n Echem mp rnucl
Nucleus
Coulomb force in nucleus) ~1 fm
= 10-15 m

• Nuclear processes rearrange protons & neutrons and release ~105-106 more energy
than chemical reactions, which rearrange atomic electrons (MeV vs. eV)
• A nuclear particle has enough energy to break ~105-106 chemical bonds
– Can damage reactor components, depending on particle type & component material
– Especially bad for DNA and other biological molecules
THR-4
4/1/05
Contributions to Nuclear Binding Energy EB (in MeV)
(N - Z)2 34 A-3/4 even N, Z
Z2 A
EB = 16 A - 17 A2/3 - 0.7 - 25 + 0 odd-even +~
A1/3 A -34 A-3/4 odd N, Z 20
Average binding if N or Z
energy of nucleon Coulomb
with nearest repulsion is magic
neighbors (strong among protons Nuclei are happiest
force range ~1.5 fm) (favors N >> Z) when each nucleon
is part of a pair
Energy cost of with opposite spins
Correction: nuclei not filling neutron
at surface have and proton states
fewer neighbors Favors N a bit to same level
Neutron spins
for binding energy larger than Z, (favors N ª Z)
especially for
+ large nuclei

p+

Energy
Proton spins
+ n
p+ +
n p+
n n
Neutron
states
Proton
states
p+ n
p+ Lower
n n p+ energy
n +
p+ n Bonus for filled nucleon
+ n p+ energy shells at magic
Energy

+ numbers of N and Z:
2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, 126, …
Valid for Radius ~ A1/3
(similar to atomic
A ≥ 15 Surface area ~ A2/3 Neutron Proton
electron shells)
states states
THR-5 Volume ~ A
4/1/05
 Binding Energy per Nucleon
And Methods of Tapping It

150
150

100
100

Z 0 MeV
0
-2
50
50 -4 B/A
E
-6
10 MeV
-8
150
150
Fusion
100
100
00 50
50 N
0
THR-6
4/1/05
 Possible Fusion Reactions Output energy
Peak cross section
at CM input energy
n Input nucleus 2 Theoretically
n 1H Neglect: feasible
Negligible
• Nuclei with t1/2 < 1 min Borderline
1H 2.2 MeV 1.4 MeV 2H
0.3 b thermal >10-25 b at >1 MeV • 3-body fusion
2H
Not feasible
6.3 MeV 5.5 MeV 3.65 MeV 3H
5x10-4 b thermal 10-6 b at 1 MeV >0.1 b at >150 keV
3H Negligible -0.76 MeV 17.6 MeV 11.3 MeV 3He
5 b at 80 keV 0.16 b at 1 MeV
3He 0.76 MeV 19.8 MeV 18.3 MeV 13 MeV 12.9 MeV 4He
5000 b thermal Negligible 0.8 b at 300 keV >0.2 b at >450 keV >0.15 b at >3 MeV
4He 1.5 MeV 2.5 MeV 1.6 MeV Negligible except 6Li
Negligible Negligible stellar 3a fusion
Input nucleus 1

-7
10 b at 700 keV
6Li 4.8 MeV 4.0 MeV 5.0 MeV 16.1 MeV 16.9 MeV -2.1 MeV
950 b thermal 0.2 b at 2 MeV 0.1 b at 1 MeV >0.03 b at >1 MeV
7Li 2.0 MeV 17.3 MeV 15.1 MeV 8.9 MeV 11-18 MeV 8.7 MeV
0.04 b thermal 0.006 b at 400 keV >0.5 b at >1 MeV >0.2 b at >4 MeV 0.4 b at 500 keV
7Be 1.6 MeV 0.14 MeV 16.8 MeV 10.5 MeV 11.3 MeV 7.5 MeV
50,000 b thermal 2x10-6 b at 600 keV 0.3 b at 900 keV
9Be 6.8 MeV 2.1 MeV 7.2 MeV 9.6 MeV 5.7 MeV
0.01 b thermal 0.4 b at 300 keV >0.1 b at >1 MeV >0.1 b at >2 MeV 0.3 b at 1.3 MeV
10Be
Negligible
10B 2.8 MeV 1.1 MeV 9.2 MeV Z1Z2≥8
3800 b thermal 0.2 b at 1 MeV >0.2 b at >1 MeV
11B 3.4 MeV 8.7 MeV 13.8 MeV 8.6 MeV
0.005 b thermal 0.8 b at 600 keV >0.1 b at >1 MeV Coulomb barrier
11C
is too high
12C 4.9 MeV 1.9 MeV
0.003 b thermal 1x10-4 b at 400 keV
13C 8.2 MeV 7.6 MeV
0.001 b thermal 0.001 b at 500 keV
14C
Negligible

Z1Z2≥7 Coulomb barrier is too high

THR-7
4/1/05
 Physical Factors in Fusion Cross Section (in barns)
As a Function of Center-of-Mass Energy ECM (keV)

650 (2J+1) Ared (DE)2

sfus= exp -31.4Z1Z2 1/3 1/3
+1.154 Z1Z2Ared(A1 +A2 )
AredECM (2J1+1)(2J2+1) ECM (ECM-Er)2+(DE/2)2

Probability of tunneling Collision energy ECM

A1A2 through Coulomb barrier must be within ~DE/2 of
Ared ≡ between nuclei excited state energy Er
(A1+A2) of compound nucleus

Input nuclei must have

correct spins to fuse
Diffraction-limited Sum over 2J+1 possible spin Coulomb + nuclear
cross-sectional states of compound nucleus and potential energy Excited
area p (l/2p)2 average over (2J1+1) and (2J2+1)
for wavefunctions state of
spin states of each input nucleus compound
of colliding nuclei
Energy of nucleus
2/3 for unpolarized D+T or D+3He
colliding nuclei
Er
T D
+ 4He n DE

+ Separation 0
l between
+ colliding
2p nuclei

THR-8
4/1/05
 Improve Spin Polarization Factor in sfus
Need better evidence (especially experimental) for or against:
• Potential benefits of spin-polarized nuclei
– Increase sfus by 50% for D+T/D+3He, 50-100% for D+D, 56% for p+11B [1: pp. 161-168]
– Suppress neutron-producing D+D side reactions in D+3He plasmas [1: pp. 161-168]
– Control angular distribution of products [1: pp. 169-178 & 269-271; 2]

• Methods of producing spin-polarized nuclei

– Spin-exchange optical pumping [3]
– Cryogenic, neutral beam, and other methods [1: pp. 213-247; 2]

• Depolarization mechanisms (two-body collisions don’t affect spin [2])

– Interactions with first wall [4]
– Interactions with magnetic inhomogeneities or fluctuations [2]
– Interactions with waves [5]
– Spin-orbit and spin-spin interactions [6]
– Long-range three-body collisions
[1] Brunelli & Leotta (eds.), Muon-Catalyzed Fusion and Fusion with Polarized Nuclei (Plenum Press, 1987)
[2] R. M. Kulsrud, E. J. Valeo, & S. C. Cowley, Nuclear Fusion 26, 1443 and Phys. Fluids 29, 430 (1986)
[3] S. G. Redsun et al., Phys. Rev. A 42, 1293 (1990); M. Poelker et al., Phys. Rev. A 50, 2450 (1994)
[4] H. S. Greenside, R. V. Budny, and D. E. Post, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 2, 619 (1984)
[5] B. Coppi et al., Phys. Fluids 29, 4060 (1986)
THR-9 [6] W. Y. Zhang and R. Balescu, J. Plasma Physics 40, 199 and 215 (1988)
4/1/05
Improve Tunneling Factor in sfus: Muon Catalysis [1]
~99.5% of muons m-
repeat the cycle
Input (m-) Energy
~10-11 sec
Free (m- rest energy 106 MeV)
~0.5% of muons muon Made from p -
139 MeV
-
stick to a Make stuff other than p x 10
Lab vs. CM frame x2
a m- Cycle time ~ 5 nsec
Muonic Accelerator efficiency x2
a m- lifetime ª 2.2 msec atom Present m- production ~5 GeV
n Dm or Tm
Need more efficient methods
DT+
molecule
17.6 MeV Output (Fusion) Energy
D ~5x10-9 sec
1 m- catalyzes ~(0.5%)-1 ª 200 fusions
~10-12 sec for fusion
(mm/me ª 207 so muonic
m- before sticking to a
atom or molecule has 200 fusions x 17.6 MeV x 1/3 effic.
T ª 1 GeV useful output per m-
~250-fm radius & ~keV energy)
Need unsticking methods
Could then catalyze 2.2ms / 5ns
Other massive negative particles: ª 440 fusions before m- decays
• Antiprotons are a loser [3] Need way to reduce cycle time [2]
• Other particles are harder to produce and shorter-lived than m-
• Large effective e- mass or charge in solids does not help [4] Performance is much worse
for reactions other than D+T

[1] Brunelli & Leotta (eds.), Muon-Catalyzed Fusion and Fusion with Polarized Nuclei (Plenum Press, 1987)
[2] M. C. Fujiwara et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1642 (2000) only decreases the time for the first cycle, not later ones
[3] D. L. Morgan, L. J. Perkins, and S. W. Haney, Hyperfine Interactions 102, 503 (1996)
THR-10 [4] J. R. Huizenga et al., Report DOE/S-0073 (Nov. 1989), www.newenergytimes.com/DOE1989/contents.htm
4/1/05
 Improve Tunneling Factor in sfus: Other Methods
Shape-polarized fusion Resonant tunneling
Wavefunction of Potential energy
Thinner, lower
sfus for end only incoming nucleus Constructive
Coulomb barrier is ~10x larger than interference
at end angle-averaged sfus between incoming
p+ 11B wavefunction
and its reflections

Scattering randomizes Separation

Thicker, higher
• orientation of 11B nuclei • Questionable validity
Coulomb barrier
on side • direction of p+ velocities
much faster than fusion • Resonant energy may
p+ be too high or narrow
to be useful
L.J. Perkins, Phys. Lett. A 236, 345 (1997) X.Z. Li et al., Phys. Rev. C 61, 024610 (2000)

Liquid metallic hydrogen • Is there a better way to beat the

Coulomb barrier?
H isotopes in • Can one show that these ideas
liquid metallic state
S. Ichimaru, completely cover the phase space
T < 0.1 eV Rev. Mod. Phys.
65, 255 (1993) of methods for dealing with the
P > 100 Mbar
Coulomb barrier?

sfus is greatly increased by • Are there ways to improve the other

• electron screening of Coulomb potential two factors in sfus? (Doubtful)
• many-particle correlations among nuclear states
THR-11
4/1/05
 Why Ions Won’t Behave
Desired property: Why you can’t have it: What you’re left with:
Ion species 1
Highly anisotropic Two-stream, Weibel, & other instabilities Approximately
velocity run amuck in highly anisotropic distributions isotropic
distributions distributions
Elastic collisions make velocity distributions
would allow collide at
isotropic on timescale tcol<<tfus
collisions to have wide range of
best CM energy CM energies
Ion species 2

Number Monoenergetic ion Number Maxwellian

of ions distributions would of ions distribution smears
allow energy to Elastic collisions make ion distributions collision energies
be optimized Maxwellian on timescale tcol<<tfus all over creation
~ E1/2 exp (- E / kT)
Energy
Eo Energy

Number Two ion species Number

Ion species
of ions with different T or ·EÒ of ions
Collisions equilibrate temperatures of at same
(e.g., cold D & hot 3He temperature
or cold 11B & hot p+) two ion species on timescale tcol<<tfus
Cold ion species 1
Hot ion species 2
Energy Energy

THR-12
T. H. Rider, Phys. Plasmas 4, 1039 (1997) and Ph.D. thesis, MIT (1995)
4/1/05
 Cross Sections for Major Fusion Reactions
sfus [barns] for Reaction rate/volume ·sfus vÒ
major reactions = ·sfus vÒ ni1 ni2 [cm3/sec]
10
for major
D+T ·sfus vÒ = Ú dE f(E) (sfus v)
D + 3He reactions
1 D+D
Larger Larger
p + 11B at lower at higher 10-15
energies energies
10-1 10-16

10-17

10-2 10-18

f(E) 10-19 D+T

Maxwellian D + 3He
sfus v
10-3 distribution 10-20 D+D
10-21 p + 11B

10-4 10-22
1 10 100 1000 Greatest 1 10 100 1000
Energy contribution
Energy [keV, lab frame] to fusion rate
Ion temperature [keV]

THR-13
4/1/05
 Electrons
You Can’t Live Without Them You Can’t Live With Them
Space-charge-limited Brillouin Ion-electron energy transfer
density for ions without electrons: rate (Pie) if Ti >> Te: 3/2

Pie 3x10-16 Z3 ln L Ti
Confining field Ion rest ~
energy density energy density Pfus Efus, MeV ·svÒcm3/sec A Ti,1/2
keV Te

B2/2mo ~ 1 for Z~1, lnL~20, Efus~18 MeV

ni <
mic2 ·svÒ~2x10-16 cm3/sec,
~ 5x1011 cm-3 for A~2 & B~20 T Ti/Te~5, A~2, Ti~100 keV
Pfus>>Pinput, so Pie>>Pinput

Fusion power density limited to: Thus Te must be ~Ti in equilibrium.

2
Pfus ~ 1x10-7 Efus, MeV ·svÒcm3/sec ni cm-3 W/m3 There are Z electrons for every ion,
so electrons soak up ~Z/(Z+1) of
~ 100 W/m3
the input energy without directly
Electrons must be present to contributing to the fusion process.
reach useful fusion power densities. Actually it’s worse—see next slide…
THR-14
4/1/05
 Electrons Lose Energy via Bremsstrahlung Radiation
If photons are confined If photons escape
Photon vs. ion energy densities Pinput E.g.: 5:1 p+11B with Ti=300 keV
for equilibrium (Tphotons ª Ti ≡ T): 10.
Fuel ions Equilibrium point
Ephotons 8 sSB T3 5.
ª Pie
P/Pfus
Eions 3 c kB ni
Electrons
1.
Maximum achievable temperature Pbrem 0.5
before radiation soaks up most of Pbrem /Pfus
Photons
the input energy (Ephotons>Eions): Pie /Pfus
0.1
1/3 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
TkeV ª 2.6x10-8 ni, cm-3 Te (keV)
Just ~10 keV even for a Minimum Pbrem/Pfus
stellar core (ni ~ 1026 cm-3)
D+T 0.007
Photons must be allowed D+3He 0.19 Feasible
to escape in order to reach D+D 0.35
useful ion temperatures 3He+3He 1.39
at attainable densities p+11B 1.74 Ouch
(& thus useful power densities) p+6Li 4.81
THR-15
4/1/05
Required Power to Maintain Nonequilibrium Plasma
Ti1 >> Ti2 Ti >> Te Non-Maxwellian Distribution f(v)
f(v) f(v, t=0) f(v, t>0) if collisional
effects are not
i1 fuel ions (high energy) Fuel ions (high energy)
counteracted

Pi1-i2 Precirc = Pi1-i2 Pie Precirc = Pie - Pbrem

v
i2 fuel ions (low energy) Electrons (low energy) Accelerate slow particles Decelerate fast particles
∂f
Pbrem
∂t col Nslow vd Nfast
v
Idealized System for Recirculating Power Add Nslow Nfast Extract
to Maintain a Nonequilibrium Plasma energy energy
•

Wnew = Qloss Precirc = Ú (dv 4pv2) (mv2/2) (∂f/∂t)col Q[J(v)]

0
(∂f/∂t)col = -—v ⋅ J(v)
Non-equilibrium plasma
• Entropy generation rate S
• Thermodynamic temperature Teff ~ keV • Precirc/Pfus ~ 5-50 for most interesting cases
• Direct electric converters, resonant heating, etc.
Q = Teff S Precirc = Wrecirc
would lose too much power during recirculation
Heat = (1-Tlow/Teff) Teff S
engine • Need novel approaches (e.g., nonlinear wave-
ª Teff S
(Carnot) particle interactions) that
– Are >95% efficient
Qloss = Tlow S ª (Tlow/Teff) Precirc
– Recirculate the power inside the plasma without
Low-temperature reservoir running Precirc>>Pfus through external hardware
• Temperature Tlow ~ eV – Are resistant to instabilities

THR-16
T. H. Rider, Phys. Plasmas 4, 1039 (1997) and Ph.D.
4/1/05 thesis, MIT (1995)—don’t overlook Appendix E
 Stellar Confinement of Fusion Plasma
Key Differences from Fusion Reactors
Sun
(1) Fusion power density: (4) Particle confinement:
• 83 W/m3 in core Mantle • Mantle confines core
• 0.27 W/m3 averaged • Gravity confines mantle
over solar volume

Core

(2) Fuel burnup time:

~10 billion years

(5) Radiation losses:

(3) Ion temperature: TradªTi
1.4 keV in core LossµTrad4 but greatly
impeded by mantle

THR-17
4/1/05
 Inertial Confinement of Fusion Plasma
• Density ~ stellar core & temperature > stellar core, so pressure > stellar
core.
• Without weight of an entire star to confine it, plasma expands rapidly,
limited only by its own inertia. (3) First wall must withstand
Major problems: ~1010 higher peak output
(1) Halite-Centurian tests in Nevada power than in continuous
apparently showed that DT targets magnetic fusion reactor.
might require up to 20 MJ to ignite.*

DD and D3He would require First wall

even more energy than DT. (4) Driver beam and target
injection ports must
be open several times
(2) Cost: National Ignition per second yet shielded
Facility (NIF) is >$4B DT target from damage by several
and is still not a large blasts per second.
full-fledged reactor
(0.6 MJ driver energy).

(5) Lithium breeder material

in walls must be converted
into precisely fabricated
Driver beams
(lasers, X-rays, or
DT targets and accurately
particle beams) positioned in chamber
with throughput of
several per second.

*
C. E. Paine, M. McKinzie, and T. B. Cochran, When Peer Review Fails
THR-18 Natural Resources Defense Council, www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nif2 (2000)
4/1/05
 Magnetic Confinement of Fusion Plasma
Charged particles spiral along Tokamaks, stellarators, RFPs, FRCs,
Goals (somewhat conflicting):
magnetic field lines B and etc. differ in how they create the
cannot easily cross them to escape plasma current and Bt, Bp, & Bz
Maximize b ≡ plasma pressure /
B magnetic pressure

Minimize B inside plasma to Bp

avoid cyclotron radiation losses

Maximize fusion power density Jt

to minimize hardware cost Bt
Problem 1: Large particle losses
at ends, even with magnetic Inner hardware subject to Bz
mirrors, electrostatic plugs, etc. radiation damage is inexpensive
and easily accessible Solution 3: Add vertical
field Bz that acts on toroidal
Solution 1: Eliminate Confine fuel ions and electrons current Jt to balance
the ends by bending but let charged products escape outward forces on plasma
lines into a closed
toroidal field Bt Provide for lithium-6 blanket if Outer wall of torus:
necessary • Less magnetic pressure
• More area for plasma
pressure
Problem 2: —B & E¥B Bp
drifts together let
particles escape

Bt
Bt Only half of
E¥B
E
torus shown drift Solution 2: Add poloidal
for clarity field Bp to mix particles in Problem 3:
—B —B Inner wall of torus:
inner & outer regions of torus • More magnetic pressure Net outward
• Less area for plasma pressure force on
THR-19 plasma
4/1/05
 Other Confinement of Fusion Plasmas (1)
Electrostatic Acoustic (Sonoluminescence)
• Electron potential well Acoustic waves in deuterated acetone

Electrons confines ions but • Acoustic waves

ion upscattering in the acetone
losses are prohibitive compress bubbles
Ions to fusion conditions (?)
• Grid or cusp field Bubble
confines electrons • Thermal conduction
but electron losses losses from heated
are prohibitive region to surrounding
liquid are prohibitive
High-voltage grid
or polyhedral cusp T.H. Rider, Phys. Plasmas R.P. Taleyarkhan et al., Phys. Rev. E 69, 036109 (2004)
magnetic field 2, 1853 (1995) D.J. Flannigan & K.S. Suslick, Nature 434, 52 & 33 (2005)

Electro- Electromagnetic Beam + Solid Target

magnetic
waves
• Electromagnetic
wave pressure Tritons Solid
deuterium
confines plasma target
Plasma • Power input is
prohibitive • Electrons in the target absorb far too
much of the beam energy for breakeven

Glasstone & Lovberg, Glasstone & Lovberg, Controlled Thermonuclear

Controlled Thermonuclear Reactions, Reactions, Van Nostrand (1960), pp. 64-68
Van Nostrand (1960), pp. 437-445
THR-20
4/1/05
 Other Confinement of Fusion Plasmas (2)
Fusion-Fission Hybrid Small Black Hole
Compresses and heats matter to fusion
Has disadvantages of
both fusion & fission: conditions before it reaches the event horizon
Fissionable
blanket • No signs of natural
• Fusion plasma small black holes
requires expensive in our solar system
Confined
and complicated
fusion • Creating a black hole
confinement system
plasma
via implosion is
• Fission blanket orders of magnitude
creates radioactive more challenging
fission products and than even ICF
actinide waste
L.L. Wood et al., Annals NY Acad. Sci. 251, 623 (1975)

Ball Lightning
Observed lifetime > 2-5 sec
• Are there other confinement
• What is the confinement approaches?
mechanism, especially in
T ~ 1-10 eV (?) view of the virial theorem?

• Can this be applied to

T>10 keV fusion plasmas? • Can one show that these ideas
~20-50 cm completely cover the phase space
of confinement approaches?
Mark Stenhoff, Ball Lightning, Kluwer/Plenum (1999)
K.H. Tsui, Phys. Plasmas 10, 4112 (2003)
THR-21
4/1/05
 Conversion to Electrical Energy
Heat Light nuclei (p+, a, etc.) Heavy (e.g., recoil) nuclei
Carnot limit: Direct converter problems
Travel <10 um in solids—
Tmin in magnetic plasmas1:
Efficiency < 1 –
Tmax • Field that lets enough fusion • Difficult for them to reach a
products out lets too many direct electric converter before
~ 0.3 - 0.4
fuel ions & electrons escape their K.E. becomes heat
for Tmin~300oK, Tmax~500oK
(before something melts) • Arcing at high voltages • Widely spaced <10-um-thick
and densities sheets are theoretically
• Conventional methods add
Trav. wave direct converters?2 feasible but generally
moving parts and fluids
Other methods? impractical
• Thermoelectric conversion 1 Rosenbluth & Hinton, Plasma Physics
& Controlled Fusion 36, 1255 (1994) Ronen, Nucl. Instr. A522, 558 (2004)
• Thermoacoustic conversion 2 Momota et al., Trans. Fus. Tech. 27, 551 (1995) Slutz, Phys. Plasmas 10, 2983 (2003)

b- and b+ Neutrons Photons (esp. X & g rays)

Novel methods of extracting Let photons impart their energy
• Direct electric converters energy from: to electrons via:
(generally most efficient when
tuned to particular b energy, • Neutrons directly??? • Photoelectric effect
but nuclear-emitted b and • Compton scattering
• Recoil nuclei hit by neutrons
electrons escaping from
• Pair production
plasmas tend to have a range • (n,g)-produced gamma rays
of energies) • Etc.
• Electrons excited by those
gamma rays Then extract that energy
• Let positrons annihilate and
from the electrons
convert 511-keV photons L.J. Perkins et al., UCRL-93988 (1986)
& Nucl. Instr. Methods A271, 188 (1988) L.L. Wood et al. UCID-16229 & 16309 (1973)
THR-22
4/1/05
 Fundamental Constraints on Fusion Approaches
(Barring Miracles—Wait One Slide…)

Fusion approaches that cannot work

• Nonmagnetic confinement (inertial, electrostatic, electromagnetic,
and acoustic), excluding stars and bombs
• Plasma systems operating substantially out of thermodynamic equilibrium
• Advanced aneutronic fuels (3He+3He, p+11B, p+6Li, etc.)
• Most high-efficiency direct electric converters

Best foreseeable 1 GWe (3 GWt) magnetic fusion reactors:

• D+T: 2.4 GW of 14-MeV neutrons, 1.6 giga-Curies (GCi) of T stockpile/year
• D+D w/o product burnup: 1 GW 2.5-MeV neutrons, 1 GW X-rays, 70 GCi T
• D+D with product burnup: 1.1 GW mainly 14-MeV neutrons, 180 MW X-rays
• D+3He w/o product burnup: 30 MW 2.5-MeV neutrons, 500 MW X-rays, 1.8 GCi T
• D+3He with product burnup: 150 MW mainly 14-MeV neutrons, 500 MW X-rays
• Mainly thermal (Carnot-limited) conversion of fusion energy to electricity

THR-23 T. H. Rider, Ph.D. thesis, MIT (1995)

4/1/05
 Potential Thesis (or Nobel Prize) Topics
Fusion reactions
• In the table of possible fusion reactions, should additional reactions be green?
(Consider competing side reactions and idealized breakeven against bremsstrahlung.)
• Are there any promising reactions not in the table (due to higher Z or shorter nuclide half-life)?

Can one provide better evidence (especially experimental) for or against spin polarized fusion?
• Benefits of spin-polarized fusion (especially for D+D reaction enhancement or suppression).
• Methods of producing polarized nuclei.
• Mechanisms and rates of depolarization relative to the fusion rate.

Fusion catalyzed by massive negative particles

• Are there more efficient muon production methods?
• Are there practical methods for unsticking muons from alpha particles?
• Are there methods to reduce the muon catalysis cycle time?
• Are there any massive negative particles that are more suitable than muons for catalysis?
• Can the effective electron mass or charge be increased in useful ways?

Other ways to improve the tunneling factor

• Is there a way to keep scattering from hindering shape-polarized fusion?
• Is the resonant tunneling model valid, and does it have useful consequences?
• Is fusion of light elements in liquid metallic states scientifically valid and practical to achieve?
• Are there other ways to improve the tunneling factor?
• Can one prove we have covered the complete phase space of ideas for improving the
tunneling factor?

Other improvements to sfus

• Are there ways to improve the wavefunction cross-sectional area factor in sfus?
• Are there ways to improve the Breit-Wigner compound nucleus energy resonance factor in sfus?
• Are there any other categories of ways to influence sfus?
THR-24
4/1/05
 More Potential Thesis (or Nobel Prize) Topics
Fusion products
• Are there practical ways to influence the reaction channels and products?

Plasma properties
• Are there realistic ways to recirculate power and maintain ions in a monoenergetic or
anisotropic state, or two ion species at different temperatures (e.g. hot 3He and cold D
or hot p+ and cold 11B?
• Are there practical ways to reduce ion-electron energy transfer or recirculate power
from the electrons back to the ions?
• Are there ways to reduce/convert radiation power losses, especially bremsstrahlung?

Confinement of particles and energy

• Are there practical lessons we can learn from stellar fusion and use to improve fusion reactors?
• Are there ways to overcome the main practical difficulties with inertial confinement fusion?
• Which existing magnetic confinement approach is best, or can a better one be created?
• Can the conduction losses be reduced to make acoustic confinement practical?
• Can fusion-fission hybrids be made more attractive?
• How is ball lightning confined, and can fusion reactors employ a similar approach?
• Is there any feasible way to create a small black hole?
• Are there any other confinement approaches worthy of investigation?

Direct conversion
• What are the most efficient/compact thermal-to-electric converters?
• What are the best converters for light nuclei—traveling wave converters, etc.?
• Are there practical ways to directly convert the energies of recoil nuclei or other heavy nuclei
emitted by solid materials?
• What are the best converters for electrons?
• How feasible and efficient are the neutron energy conversion methods of Perkins et al.?
• How feasible and efficient are the X-ray and g-ray energy conversion methods of Wood et al.?
THR-25
4/1/05
 Binding Energy per Nucleon
And Methods of Tapping It

g decay
150
150

Fission

b+ decay a decay
100
100

Z 0 MeV
b- decay 0
-2
50
50 -4 B/A
E
Nucleon transfer -6
10 MeV
-8
150
150
Fusion
100
100
00 50
50 N
Antimatter + matter
0
THR-26
4/1/05