Timeline for Nuclear fusion : ion vs atom fusion cross section?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 2, 2012 at 7:12 | comment | added | Shaktyai | @AlanSE I agree with you: beam-target fusion would be a lot simpler, and it is a pitty most of the fusion money has been allocated to ITER. What is the process you think about for atom-atom fusion ? | |
| Sep 1, 2012 at 21:39 | comment | added | Alan Rominger | @JimGraber That limits the design space for anyone trying to make fusion power with oppositely charged ion-ion interactions, but even if you were completely convinced that oppositely charged interactions have no utility the question would be relevant for the difference in cross sections between plasma approaches and beam-target approaches, as the later would depend on ion-atom cross sections. As far as I can tell, even that much remains unanswered. | |
| Sep 1, 2012 at 21:32 | comment | added | Jim Graber | @AlanSE The problem with beam-beam approaches is the high rate of elastic and inelastic scatters compared to the low rate of fusion reactions. | |
| Sep 1, 2012 at 21:16 | comment | added | Alan Rominger | @Shaktyai Your opposition has already been addressed in the comments. An electron can be added to an ion after it is accelerated. Hot plasmas were favored as the main technology track for their higher collision rate, but beam-beam and beam-target approaches are seriously entertained and fusion power is still anyone's game. As far as I can tell, the electron stripping would preclude beam-target, but not beam-beam approaches. | |
| Sep 1, 2012 at 18:12 | comment | added | Shaktyai | @ BarsMonster To fuse nucleus, you need to provide energy. There is no known processes to accelerate a neutral atom to energy high enough to induce fusion. That is why one talks about hot plasmas and hot fusion. At the energy required for fusion, the atoms are stripped out of their electrons. | |
| Sep 1, 2012 at 13:43 | history | edited | Jim Graber | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
responded to comments and discussed cross section for fusion reaction
|
| Sep 1, 2012 at 13:23 | comment | added | Jim Graber | Sorry you didn't like my answer. I think the next thing to say is that indeed, on this oversimplified level, only nucleus nucleus collisions lead to fusion, so you can ignore the neutral-neutral and neutral ion collisions. I will edit my answer. | |
| Sep 1, 2012 at 13:12 | comment | added | BarsMonster | @Shaktyai I don't see why atom-atom (and atom-ion) fusion is unrelated to real world. Having neutral atoms flying with energy enough for fusion is possible. And I agree with Ron. | |
| Sep 1, 2012 at 8:35 | comment | added | Shaktyai | @R Don't be so unforgivable. On one hand Jim's explains very clearly the idea behind the cross section, and it would be easy to follow its steps and compute the surface of large atom's nucleus. And on the other hand, atom-atom fusion in the question is unheard of in the real world. So Jim's answer is perfectly legitimate. | |
| Sep 1, 2012 at 7:31 | comment | added | Ron Maimon | This is ridiculous--- he is not asking for the cross section for collision, he is asking for the cross section for fusion. | |
| Sep 1, 2012 at 7:10 | history | answered | Jim Graber | CC BY-SA 3.0 |