Why is it that only hydrogen isotopes are used for Fusion bombs?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the reasons why hydrogen isotopes, particularly deuterium and tritium, are primarily used for fusion in bombs. Participants explore the conditions required for fusion, the practicality of using other elements, and the implications of different fusion reactions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that hydrogen fusion occurs at lower temperatures compared to other elements, making hydrogen and its isotopes more suitable for fusion reactions.
  • There is mention of lithium-6 being used in fusion processes, as it can be converted into tritium during detonation.
  • One participant notes that tritium is radioactive with a half-life of about 12 years, which poses challenges for long-term storage.
  • Another point raised is that while hydrogen and helium are practical for fusion on Earth, other elements can be fused in stars under extreme conditions, leading to the formation of heavier elements.
  • Some participants discuss the energy dynamics of fusion versus fission, noting that while fission releases more energy per reaction, hydrogen fusion is easier to initiate.
  • There is a mention of helium-3 as a potential fusion fuel, which could allow for reactions without free neutrons, although its practicality is debated.
  • Concerns are raised about the energy output of fusion reactions as the mass of the nuclei increases, suggesting that higher mass fusion reactions yield less energy per nucleon.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the practicality and efficiency of using different isotopes and elements for fusion. There is no consensus on the superiority of one approach over another, and multiple competing perspectives remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the challenges of achieving fusion with elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, emphasizing the extreme conditions required for such reactions. The discussion also touches on the implications of energy release in different fusion processes.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying nuclear physics, fusion technology, or the processes occurring in stellar environments.

oktovan
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Is there any other elements that can be used for fusion?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hydrogen fusion occurs at a relatively low temperature than any other element. Hence hydrogen and it's isotopes are used. The temperature goes on increasing with the increase in mass of the nucleus.
 
An example related to this question is what happens inside stars. The H to He transformation (in several steps) is the source of stellar radiation until the H is almost all gone. Then the star interior gets much hotter and further fusion reactions, involving He and successive elements (ends at iron), take place.
 
I thought they used Li6 and deuterium since Li6 is cheaper than tritium? Could be wrong, haven't read much about this stuff in years lol.
 
The easiest material to get to fusion is tritium and deuterium. Lithium is used because during the multi-stage process of detonation, it is turned into tritium.
 
Drakkith said:
The easiest material to get to fusion is tritium and deuterium. Lithium is used because during the multi-stage process of detonation, it is turned into tritium.

So the Li6 gets hit by a neutron and breaks into a tritium and two deuterium isotpoes or some other arrangement of the nuetrons and protons?
 
mesa said:
So the Li6 gets hit by a neutron and breaks into a tritium and two deuterium isotpoes or some other arrangement of the nuetrons and protons?

Lithium 6 absorbs a neutron and splits into an alpha particle and a tritium nucleus. The tritium is then fused with deuterium that is present in the lithium-deuteride mix.
 
Another practical consideration is that Tritium is radioactive with a half life of ~ 12 years, not good for long term storage.
 
  • #10
The Coulomb repulsion barrier height goes as the product of the atomic numbers of the nuclei Z^2.
 
  • #11
oktovan said:
Is there any other elements that can be used for fusion?

Yes, in stars, all elements are used in a variety of fusion reactions to create all elements up to Iron. In supernovas, temperatures are very briefly high enough to create the other heavier elements above iron so, all of the atoms that make up you and the world around you were created in a fusion process at the heart of a star or supernova.

On earth, with human technology and scale, fusion is only practical for Hydrogen and certain forms of helium as the pressures and temperatures required are near impossible for humans to create.

To put things in perspective, it requires the energy of a fission atomic bomb to start a hydrogen (Deuterium - Tritium) fusion process in the heart of a hydrogen bomb. Even with all of this power, the fusion reaction is difficult to achieve as the xray pressure from the fission reaction must be focused on the Hydrogen before blowing it apart. Fusion with anything other then Hydrogen/Helium at human scales is very difficult to achieve.

A
 
  • #12
Drakkith said:
The easiest material to get to fusion is tritium and deuterium. Lithium is used because during the multi-stage process of detonation, it is turned into tritium.

Don't forget about the fabled helium-3 reaction...
 
  • #13
Drakkith's statement is true, as D+T (one proton each) is easier than any reaction with helium (2 protons) or even heavier nuclei. The advantage of helium-3 is the possibility to have a fusion reaction without (free) neutrons.
 
  • #14
mfb said:
Drakkith's statement is true, as D+T (one proton each) is easier than any reaction with helium (2 protons) or even heavier nuclei. The advantage of helium-3 is the possibility to have a fusion reaction without (free) neutrons.

I agree the statement is correct. The possiblity of having a reaction without free neutrons I believe is critical to the success of implementing fusion power stations as a reactor that destroys it containment vessel would be unpractical. I just thought I would mention the reaction as I feel its very relavent to the difficulties associated with fusion and fusion in industry.
 
  • #15
You also have less energy released per pair of nuclei fused as you go from hydrogen to iron. Even if it turned out to be 'relatively' easy to fuse neon into calcium (to cite a fanciful example), the expected energy pay off for the reaction would be low.
 
  • #16
tasp77 said:
You also have less energy released per pair of nuclei fused as you go from hydrogen to iron. Even if it turned out to be 'relatively' easy to fuse neon into calcium (to cite a fanciful example), the expected energy pay off for the reaction would be low.

I don't disagree, but consider the following. Per reaction the decay of Uranium by fission releases FAR more energy than the fusion of Hydrogen. (17 MeV in fusion compared with 200+ MeV in fission of Uranium) I don't know the amount of energy released by fusing neon into calcium but I expect that it might release a substantial amount of energy. (Just less energy per nucleon than hydrogen, similar the the Uranium)
 
  • #17
Thats because it requires less energy to fuse 2 hydrogen molecules than fusing molecules of higher mass.
In the core of red giants, carbon is formed by fusion of helium which requires much more energy. So, hydrogen can be fused easily to produce lots of energy.
 

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K