Submitted by i_owe_them13 t3_zpax7p in askscience
Jon_Beveryman t1_j0tggqw wrote
Reply to comment by Kered13 in How do X-rays “compress” a nuclear fusion pellet? by i_owe_them13
Technically it's not! The most effective known way of compressing fusion fuel is to generate an insanely high x-ray pressure using a fission primary. We've been doing that since the 50s! But these have, ahem, other issues for energy purposes.
To achieve ignition temperatures in the fuel pellet, you need really large pressures. Stagnation pressures in previous NIF shots are on the order of 1-10 gigabar, or 800 terapascal; similar attempts at OMEGA, a similar laser facility, have achieved lower but still very high pressures of about 200 gigapascal using direct laser ablation rather than using the laser to produce x-rays. Laser and x-ray ablation are well suited to producing such high pressures, because they can dump a lot of energy into the target very very fast; this allows the ablated layer to reach high energy densities before anything can really start moving.
There are other ways to do it, maybe! For instance there's a startup called First Light which is trying to use light gas guns to produce the requisite pressures using physical impacts. They may have gotten this idea from a somewhat infamous nuclear physicist named Friedwardt Winterberg, who proposed a number of interesting mechanisms for compressing fusion fuel. Like this idea to use a hypervelocity projectile to adiabatically compress a high-atomic-weight gas, which will then get hot enough to ignite the fuel pellet!
nicuramar t1_j0u87lj wrote
> Technically it’s not! The most effective known way of compressing fusion fuel is to generate an insanely high x-ray pressure using a fission primary. We’ve been doing that since the 50s!
It’s believed that ablation pressure is responsible for the compression of the secondary here as well, and not radiation pressure, as I understand it. Ablation pressure seems unavoidable and is much higher.
Jon_Beveryman t1_j0u9ayg wrote
I would certainly believe that either is possible, but good ol' Winterberg seems to think that radiation pressure dominates, since it scales so strongly with temperature - to the order of 5000 TPa on the surface of the tamper! Meanwhile the ablation pressure should scale "only" with the P-T EOS of the tamper material.
nicuramar t1_j0ubtlm wrote
The articles I read analyses that ablation pressure is so dominant as to render radiation pressure irrelevant. But since it’s not publicly known…
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments