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

344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates

APPLIED, HEP-TH/PH — By Dmitry Podolsky on April 9, 2009 at 3:04 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.

This post is the next in the series devoted to the discussion of our main energy source in the 22 century – thermonuclear fusion 344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates

Today let us talk a bit about reaction rates. Somehow, it is accustomed that we estimate these rates in terms of the maximal effective cross-section of the reaction. Here are some important and most common reactions that happen in Sun (as well as their cross-sections):

reaction energy released 344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates, 344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates energy of incoming particle, corr. to 344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates
344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates 2.2 MeV 344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates barn
344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates 5.5 MeV 344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates barn
344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates 19.7 MeV 344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates barn
344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates 4.0 MeV 0.16 barn 2.0 MeV
344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates 3.3 MeV 0.09 barn 1.0 MeV
344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates 24.0 MeV
344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates 17.6 MeV 5.0 barn 0.13 MeV
344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates 11.3 MeV 0.10 barn 1.0 MeV

Note that reactions involving light particles like p, d (344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates nucleus) and t (344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates nucleus) are rather low. The last column basically shows how much energy you need to pump into the system in orde to start nuclear reaction – recall that 1 eV is about 10000 K.

The picture below shows how the effective cross-sections for different reaction behave with increasing the projectile energy:

344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates

How to calculate the total cross-section of a nuclear reaction? There are two factorized contributions into 344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates. First, you need to overcome the Coulomb barrier (estimation of the associated probability is an easy task for any person who is familiar with quantum mechanics). Second, the probability that nuclear transformation actually happens should also be taken into account – this one is much harder to estimate, so I postpone discussion of this contribution till tomorrow.

The probability to overcome the Coulomb barrier is estimated as follows. The height of the barrier is given by

344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates,

where 344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates and 344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates are electric charges of nuclei. Even for smallest 344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates and 344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates possible (equal to 1 as in the reaction d+d), this height is about 200 keV.
On the other hand, the temperature of plasma in the center of a star (like our Sun) is about 344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates K, which corresponds to 344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates keV. So, we have to conclude that in stars Coulomb barrier is overcomed because of the quantum tunnelling 344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates

When the energies of particles participating in the reaction are much lower than the height of the Coulomb barrier, the probability of tunnelling is given by Gamov exponent (first instanton discovered, whether you want it or not)

344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates,

where 344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates and 344. Thermonuclear fusion. Coulomb barrier and reaction rates.

Interestingly, in contemporary experiments this simple expression ceases to describe physics properly. The reason is the presence of nuclei in the beam with energies higher or comparable with the height of the Coulomb barrier.

6 Comments

  1. Lubos Motl says:
    April 9, 2009 at 4:29 pm

    Dear Dmitry, is the last reaction, “t+4″, supposed to be “t+t”? Although I admit, colliding a tritium against the number four would be more exciting. You would surely create “pi” and 0.86 of pseudo-GeV would be left.

    Reply
    • Dmitry says:
      April 9, 2009 at 4:39 pm

      t indeed, fixed!

      Thanks,
      Dmitry.

      Reply
  2. Elbasher says:
    April 24, 2009 at 7:25 pm

    Very nice. But what about fusion of heavy nuclei?

    Thank you

    Reply
    • Dmitry says:
      April 24, 2009 at 9:22 pm

      Dear Elbasher,

      You mean fission, not fusion, I guess, don’t you?

      Cheers,
      Dmitry.

      Reply

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

  • Thermonuclear fusion. Nuclear reaction rates - second part | NEQNET: Non-equilibrium Phenomena
  • NEQNET: first two weeks of April | NEQNET: Non-equilibrium Phenomena

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
  • Comments
  • Login
  • Search
  • On moduli stabilisation in heterotic orbifolds On moduli stabilisation in heterotic orbifolds
    April 24, 2012 09:04
  • A holographic model of the quantum Hall effect A holographic model of the quantum Hall effect
    April 19, 2012 09:04
  • Transdimensional Multiverse Measures Transdimensional Multiverse Measures
    April 18, 2012 11:04
  • 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
  • Neeta Mohla: Hello, Dr. Dmitry I'm a science enthusiast and read yr review of biocentrism. I've been sceptical on both sides an...
  • Momchil: I want to ask the experts about an apparent confusion, that appears in many papers on the Unruh effect. As you stat...
  • Paul: Excellent list! how lucky you are to be involved in the effort to solve some of these. On time, I question its re...
  • philbert: Simple illustration and may apply to mixed layer boundary layers, how about the stable and other types of boundary ...
  • 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 :)...
    Register,
    login with your NEQNET profile
    or login with Facebook:

    • 226. Top ten open problems in physics
      • 34 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
      • 25 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.