Classical description of fusion

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Aidan Davis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Classical Fusion
Aidan Davis
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
Fusion is, in most cases (stars, etc.), considered probabilistic. The Gamow-Sommerfeld factor is used to calculate the probability that two colliding nuclei will undergo fusion, considering the fact that the particles have a chance of fusing by quantum tunneling. However, one can calculate an energy (and corresponding speed) that a particle must have to overcome the coloumb barrier and approach within a set distance of the target nuclei, using only classical mechanics. This energy is 1.44 MeV•Z(1)•Z(2)/D, where D is the set distance in fermis, aka 10^-15 meters. If a particle is incoming onto a target nucleus enough energy to come close enough to fuse, even by classical mechanics, is fusion guaranteed or is there still a probabilistic nature to it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You cannot guarantee fusion. In addition, often this energy is sufficient to get various other reactions.
 
mfb said:
You cannot guarantee fusion. In addition, often this energy is sufficient to get various other reactions.
Ah, pair production of electrons and positrons occurs at these high energies. So fusion would be optimized best by using the Gamow factor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamow_factor (Ok, wiki isn't the best source but it gives the equations straightforwardly. Here's a derivation of sorts: http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~gk/A403/fusion.pdf)
to calculate the probability of fusion f fusion at a certain energy and then treating that as an optimization problem to get the lowest energy per fusion. I worked it this way, and came to the conclusion that if optimized in this way, D-D fusion, for example, peaks at 246.6 KeV, and all combinations peak at a probability of 13.535% (e^-2). The peak energy is proportional to the product of the charges of the two nuclei and the square root of their reduced mass.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K