Explaining the Physical Significance of Terms in Nuclear Fusion Equations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Soilwork
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fusion
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around interpreting the physical significance of terms in nuclear fusion equations, specifically focusing on expressions related to power generation and cross-section factors in fusion reactions.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the meanings of various terms in the equations, such as the significance of the exponential factors and the impact parameter. Questions arise regarding the definitions and implications of these terms in the context of nuclear fusion.

Discussion Status

Some participants provide insights into the physical significance of the terms, particularly relating to the Boltzmann distribution and tunneling effects. There is acknowledgment of the correctness of certain interpretations, but no explicit consensus is reached on all aspects of the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the need for clarity on the definitions of terms and their units, as well as the context of the equations being discussed. There is mention of external resources for further exploration of related concepts.

Soilwork
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
I just need a little help in interpreting a question.

Question
Identify the terms in the above two expression and give their physical significance


What do you think they mean by physical significance?

These are the two expressions by the way.

[tex]\epsilon = n_a n_x \frac{< \sigma V >} {\rho}[/tex]

[tex]< \sigma V > =( \frac {8} {m \pi})^{1/2} (kT)^{-3/2} \int_{0}^{100000} S(E) e^{(\frac{-E} {kT} - \frac {b} {E^{1/2}})} dE[/tex]

What I've done is explain all the terms in these expressions

na = number of particles per unit volume of nuclide a
nx = number of particles per unit volume of nuclide x
Q = Energy per reaction
[tex]\rho[/tex] = density
[tex]\epsilon[/tex] = power generated per unit mass

[tex]<\sigma V >[/tex]= the velocity integrated cross-section
m = reduced mass of the target-projectile system.
k = Boltzmann’s constant.
T = temperature of the system
S(E) = cross-section factor
E = Energy
b = this is just a term that simplifies the equation and here all I did was I gave the full expression.

I was thinking that maybe the physical significance would be to say that [tex]e^{\frac {-b} {E^{1/2}}[/tex] is the probability of penetration of the energy barrier and [tex]e^{\frac{-E} {kT}}[/tex] is the maxwellian distribution etc.??

P.S. The integral is meant to be infinity but I didn't know the syntax
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
[tex]\infty[/tex] "[tag]\infty[/tag]" gives infinity. Check the LaTeX thread.

Typesetting in LaTeX - https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=8997

I believe b is the impact parameter, or is related. The 'b' must have units of [itex]\sqrt{energy}[/itex], so is related to velocity or momentum.

From what text is the second expression for [itex]<\sigma V >[/itex]?

Here is some useful discussion on distributions, particularly Maxwell-Boltzmann. See plate 3.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/disfcn.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/math/disfcn.html#c1
 
Last edited:
yes, your physical intuition about the physical significance is correct.

The exp(-E/kT) comes from the Boltzmann distribution, the exp(-b/sqrt(E)) comes from the penetration factor. The first function decreases with energy (there are less fast particles), the second increases (it is easier for fast particles to tunnel through the potential barrier. When you multiply the two functions, you get the Gamow Peak. Check it out in google.

b comes from the tunneling calculation. It is: [itex]b \equiv {\sqrt{2\mu} \pi Z_a Z_b e^2 \over \hbar}[/itex]. The full tunnelling + reaction includes also the nuclear cross section which enters through S(E).

In the sun, the Gamow peak comes out to be at about 5 times kT while other reactions have it much higher (e.g., 20 times kT for typical CNO reactions)

– http://www.sciencebits.com"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks a lot for you help guys. That's cleared the question up.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K