NEQNET: The world of theoretical physics

For physicts by physicists

  • Archives
  • Best posts
  • Contact us
  • How to subscribe
  • Newcomer?
  • Open problems
  • Home
  • APPLIED
  • ASTRO
  • COND-MAT
  • HEP-TH/PH

Subscribe via email

or connect via

346. Thermonuclear fusion. Nuclear reaction rates – second part

APPLIED — By Dmitry Podolsky on April 10, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Print This Post Print This Post   Save This Post as PDF

Dmitry Podolsky has got his PhD from Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics. He currently works as postdoc at Case Western Reserve University. He is also one of the editors of NEQNET.

Last time we have figured out that two factors determine effective rates of nuclear reactions – the probability of quantum mechanical tunnelling through the Coulomb barrier and the probability of nuclear transformation. Let us talk today about the second factor a bit.

While the first factor given in the simplest case by the Gamov exponent which is universal, the second factor really depends on the reaction you consider. For example, for reactions involving production of 346. Thermonuclear fusion. Nuclear reaction rates   second part (maximally bound nucleus) it is large, with resonant dependence on energy. In particular, this is the case for one of the most perspective reactions 346. Thermonuclear fusion. Nuclear reaction rates   second part (no outgoing neutrons).

On the other hand, for reactions that proceed due to weak interaction (first three from the table in the previous post) this factor is extremely small. For example, the reaction like 346. Thermonuclear fusion. Nuclear reaction rates   second part, extremely important for the nuclear fusion in Sun, was never observed in laboratory.

That’s, I am afraid, pretty much all I know about the second factor in the rate 346. Thermonuclear fusion. Nuclear reaction rates   second part , so let me explain how rate of the reaction depends on thermodynamic quantities describing plasma. Let us start with densities of nuclei. The main contribution into collision integral for plasma comes from one-to-one collisions between nuclei, so we can really estimate it as

346. Thermonuclear fusion. Nuclear reaction rates   second part,

where 346. Thermonuclear fusion. Nuclear reaction rates   second part and 346. Thermonuclear fusion. Nuclear reaction rates   second part are densities of nuclei of the type 1 and 2 correspondingly. If nuclei in the plasma are of the same type, we should write

346. Thermonuclear fusion. Nuclear reaction rates   second part

instead.

Dependence of the rate on temperature is defined by the factor 346. Thermonuclear fusion. Nuclear reaction rates   second part in the collision integral. When temperatures are not very high (so that the Coulomb barrier is penetrated due to QM tunnelling), cross-section can be estimated using Gamov exponent:

346. Thermonuclear fusion. Nuclear reaction rates   second part.

Averaging the product 346. Thermonuclear fusion. Nuclear reaction rates   second part over Maxwell distribution we have

346. Thermonuclear fusion. Nuclear reaction rates   second part.

Note that the temperature dependence

346. Thermonuclear fusion. Nuclear reaction rates   second part

is relatively weak (say, compared, to 346. Thermonuclear fusion. Nuclear reaction rates   second part that holds for chemical reactions). That’s basically what allows thermonuclear reactions to run at so (relatively) low temperatures.

3 Comments

    Leave a Comment

    Click here to cancel reply.


    For LaTeX in your comment, please use tags [tex] and [/tex]. Also, you may use the following HTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> .

    Login with Facebook:

    or subscribe me to comments RSS feed

    Trackback responses to this post

    • Introduction into thermonuclear reactors | NEQNET: Non-equilibrium Phenomena
    • NEQNET: first two weeks of April | NEQNET: Non-equilibrium Phenomena
    • Thermonuclear fusion: list of posts | NEQNET: Non-equilibrium Phenomena

    Related Posts

    • No Related Post
    • Comments
    • Login
    • Search
    • Large non-Gaussianity from axion inflation Large non-Gaussianity from axion inflation
      January 31, 2012 14:01
    • On strong disorder renormalization On strong disorder renormalization
      March 18, 2011 20:03
    • Relaunching NEQNET
      January 20, 2011 21:01
    • Saturday’s photoguess: what does this monkey symbolize?
      June 20, 2009 19:06
    • Dynamics of space storm
      June 19, 2009 12:06
    • Micro: Can 2 question provide a common solution? Black holes, information loss paradox and Ultra high energy cosmic rays. ...
    • James Ph. Kotsybar: SAGITTARIUS A* -- James Ph. Kotsybar Mysteriously cloaked, obscure despite Interior illuminating glare, Long ...
    • cad: The presentation can be found in several formats at http://pirsa.org/08110051/...
    • James Ph. Kotsybar: COMMENTS FOR THIS ENTRY ARE CLOSED -- James Ph. Kotsybar When the general public hears about A breakthrough in...
    • James Ph. Kotsybar: FEARFUL SYMMETRY (from Songs Of Experiments) -- James Ph. Kotsybar Beyond notice, out of sight in dimensions c...
    • James Ph. Kotsybar: OFF THE SCALE -- James Ph. Kotsybar The young lady known simply as Bright, who could travel at speeds f...
    • James Ph. Kotsybar: COSMIC PREDICTION -- James Ph. Kotsybar Betelgeuse is gonna blow! It?s just a matter of time It?s only ten...
    • Leo: Ok I have a question: if a black hole is supermassive, say 100 billion solar mass, let's suppose Alice fells int...
    • James Ph. Kotsybar: HIGHER DIMENSIONS -- James Ph. Kotsybar From point to line to plane to sphere there?s only three dimensi...
    • superkuh: I am glad you are back! No more disapointing weekly refreshings of that monkey....
    • Dmitry: Thank you James, beautiful and inspiring as usual :)...
    • Dmitry: Yes, renormalization group should still be applicable, but crit. exponents have to be different. By the way, if we ...
    • James Ph. Kotsybar: UNIQUE PARAMETERS -- James Ph. Kotsybar There is only one answer to creation. Though we don?t nearly understan...
    • Ariel Amir: Very interesting, thanks. It indeed seems to be very close to what we discuss here. I wonder whether the distributi...
    • Dmitry: Hi Ariel, thanks for the explanation! Let me now discuss a bit the application I had in mind. It has to do w...
      Register,
      login with your NEQNET profile
      or login with Facebook:

      • 226. Top ten open problems in physics
        • 33 comments
      • 353. Vortex line representation. Cauchy invariant
        • 33 comments
      • The very meaning of socialism
        • 26 comments
      • 377. Temporal and spatial dependence of quantum entanglement
        • 26 comments
      • Biocentrism: book review
        • 24 comments

    Facebook: Community

    Facebook: Your Friends

    Google Friend Connect

    Links: Journals

    Links: Resources

    Links: Blogs

    • Lubos Motl's Reference Frame
    Copyright © NEQNET: The world of theoretical physics 2008-2011. All Rights Reserved.