-4
$\begingroup$

Which one takes more energy to produce?

I ask as I theorize that keeping the plasma in a fusion reactor is very expensive.

Muons, while useful, are too short lived.

Maybe... Keeping the plasma at close but not actually passed the fusion threshold, and a steady gamma laser to push a small section over that edge would be more feasible.

Or heck, have in the plasma itself trace amount of thorium.

$\endgroup$

closed as unclear what you're asking by Emilio Pisanty, Aaron Stevens, ZeroTheHero, Jon Custer, Buzz Jan 15 at 0:58

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Have I missed the invention of a gamma laser? $\endgroup$ – Lewis Miller Jan 14 at 16:32
  • $\begingroup$ What's the relevance of muons to fusion? And how would thorium help? $\endgroup$ – PM 2Ring Jan 14 at 17:59
2
$\begingroup$

A muon has a rest energy of 106 MeV, so it takes this much energy to produce.

Gamma photons are usually defined to be photons with an energy of at least 100 keV. They have been measured up to something like 1000 TeV.

So there are gamma photons a thousand times less energetic than a muon, and also gamma photons billions of times more energetic than a muon.

The plasma in most fusion reactors is contained by magnetic fields, not by particles like muons or radiation like gamma rays.

Some fusion reactors use a completely different approach where strong lasers shine from all directions to heat and confine the plasma, but the photons coming out of these lasers do not need to have gamma-ray energies.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ G. Smith Thank you. $\endgroup$ – Omry Cool-Tall Jan 15 at 10:59

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.