Cyclic Fusion Reactor_Colliding Beams_Final Edition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joseph Chikva
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cyclic Fusion
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the energy consumption estimation for a cyclic fusion reactor using colliding beams. Joseph explains that the average kinetic energy transfer during elastic collisions is approximately 12 eV, leading to a total energy transfer of about 120 keV from 10,000 scatterings per fusion event. The energy transfer includes 100 keV to slower ions and 20 keV to the electron gas, which is primarily dissipated through Bremsstrahlung. The interaction dynamics aim to maintain a consistent center-of-mass collision energy despite varying kinetic energies among different particle types. The overall goal is to optimize the collision energy for effective fusion events.
Joseph Chikva
Messages
202
Reaction score
2
Cyclic Fusion Reactor_Colliding Beams_Final Edition
PDF file
 

Attachments

Engineering news on Phys.org
Joseph, how did you calculate your "estimation of energy consumption of accelerating field specified per one occurred fusion event"?
 
Drakkith said:
Joseph, how did you calculate your "estimation of energy consumption of accelerating field specified per one occurred fusion event"?
Average kinetic energy transfer from faster moving ion to slower ion per a single elastic collision (scattering event) is about 12eV. This corresponds to deuteron's scattering at 0.85deg. And about 10 thousand scatterings per each occurred fusion event make 120keV of energy transfer. Thus via elastic collisions each slower ion will be accelerated at about 100keV gaining also some spread in axial velocities. Remaining 20keV will be transferred to electron gas via collective interaction with electron gas with mediation of strong self-field of combined beam. Electron-ion pair elastic collisions amount are neglectable due to their very big difference in velocities.
Mentioned 20keV gaining by electron gas from each ion will be mostly dissipated via Bremsstrahlung but also will increase the transverse motion energy of electrons (electron gas thermalization).

So, we will have a tendency to equalization of coherent motion velocities reducing collision energy in center-of-mass frame. Longitudinal electric field will accelerate all three spices of particles. But giving them different KE due to their different charge-to-mass ratio.
And our task here to keep comparatively constant center-of-mass collision energy.
 
Last edited:
Hello everyone, I am currently working on a burnup calculation for a fuel assembly with repeated geometric structures using MCNP6. I have defined two materials (Material 1 and Material 2) which are actually the same material but located in different positions. However, after running the calculation with the BURN card, I am encountering an issue where all burnup information(power fraction(Initial input is 1,but output file is 0), burnup, mass, etc.) for Material 2 is zero, while Material 1...
Hi everyone, I'm a complete beginner with MCNP and trying to learn how to perform burnup calculations. Right now, I'm feeling a bit lost and not sure where to start. I found the OECD-NEA Burnup Credit Calculational Criticality Benchmark (Phase I-B) and was wondering if anyone has worked through this specific benchmark using MCNP6? If so, would you be willing to share your MCNP input file for it? Seeing an actual working example would be incredibly helpful for my learning. I'd be really...
Back
Top