See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311938662

Proposal for a novel type of small scale aneutronic fusion reactor

Article  in  Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion · December 2016

DOI: 10.1088/1361-6587/59/2/025011

CITATIONS READS

0 437

1 author:

Johannes Gruenwald
Gruenwald Laboratories
38 PUBLICATIONS   190 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Johannes Gruenwald on 28 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Proposal for a novel type of small scale aneutronic fusion reactor

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2017 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 59 025011

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0741-3335/59/2/025011)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 194.27.18.18
This content was downloaded on 28/12/2016 at 13:25

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion

Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 59 (2017) 025011 (9pp) doi:10.1088/1361-6587/59/2/025011

Proposal for a novel type of small scale

aneutronic fusion reactor
J Gruenwald
ELI beamlines—International Laser Research Centre, Za Radnicí 835, 252 41 Dolní Břežany, Czech
Republic

E-mail: jgruenwald@gmx.at

Received 1 September 2016, revised 10 November 2016

Accepted for publication 23 November 2016
Published 28 December 2016

Abstract
The aim of this work is to propose a novel scheme for a small scale aneutronic fusion reactor.
This new reactor type makes use of the advantages of combining laser driven plasma
acceleration and electrostatic confinement fusion. An intense laser beam is used to create a
lithium–proton plasma with high density, which is then collimated and focused into the centre of
the fusion reaction chamber. The basic concept presented here is based on the 7Li–proton fusion
reaction. However, the physical and technological fundamentals may generally as well be
applied to 11B–proton fusion. The former fusion reaction path offers higher energy yields while
the latter has larger fusion cross sections. Within this paper a technological realisation of such a
fusion device, which allows a steady state operation with highly energetic, well collimated ion
beam, is presented. It will be demonstrated that the energetic break even can be reached with this
device by using a combination of already existing technologies.

Keywords: fusion, electrostatic confinement, fusion technology

(Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal)

1. Introduction but up to now there was no demonstration of reaching the

In recent years the pursuit of harnessing cost effective and
abundant fusion energy has become more and more vigorous
as the worldwide power demand is increasing steadily. The
main fusion schemes at this time are the tokamak, the stel-
larator, the reversed field pinch and the inertial confinement
fusion in all their different varieties, which were summarised
in a recent paper by Sheffield [1]. This author identified some
major challenges, which have to be solved in order to achieve
a viable concept for a fusion reactor. Examples of these issues
include the lack of reliability data under power plant condi-
tions or the fact that a suitable material that can withstand the
high energetic neutron fluxes from the D–T fusion reaction.
Another important point is the necessity to operate a fusion
power plant in steady state, which has so far only been proven
to be possible with the stellarator concept. There are other,
more exotic, types of potential fusion reactors, such as the
dense plasma focus [2, 3] and the Farnsworth–Hirsh fusor
[4, 5], which was developed in the 1960s and subsequently
studied by other authors [6–10]. The latter fusion scheme
solves, in principle, the problem of steady state operation [11]
energetic break even point in such a machine, despite the
advent of more sophisticated fusors, such as the so-called
Polywell [12, 13]. There are several reasons due to which
inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC) fusion devices still
consume more energy than they deliver. Firstly, the kinetic
energies for the largest fusion cross sections peak at rather
high values, for example at 100 keV for D–T reactions, at
750 keV for 11B–proton reactions, at 2 MeV for D–D reac-
tions [14] and at 5 MeV for the aneutronic 7Li–proton reac-
tions [15]. Such high kinetic energies are not easily achieved
by accelerating electric fields alone. Hence, most fusors
operate with particle energies well below these critical values,
which decreases the fusion yield substantially. Secondly,
particle losses in the core region of the reactor are an issue
due to a weak confinement of highly energetic ions. This
problem was particularly studied by Rider [16] for a Max-
wellian plasma in IEC fusion systems, where he showed
theoretically that substantial losses of ions will occur as a
result of energetic upscattering (i.e. the increase of the kinetic
energy via collisions with highly energetic particles). This
poses a severe problem concerning ions with kinetic energies

0741-3335/17/025011+09$33.00 1 © 2016 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK

Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 59 (2017) 025011
not far below the depth of the potential well. Hirsch partially
solved this problem unknowingly by attaching ion guns to his
invention [17], which are narrowing down the energy spread
of the distribution function. However, the ion densities from
these guns were still too low to reach fusion yields above the
break even point.
From these general issues it can already be deduced that a
major requirement for an optimal operation of a steady state
fusor is the ability to produce high density, high energy ion
beams that can be focused into a small region where they
undergo fusion reactions. The requirement of a small fusion
region with comparably high particle density is owed to the
fact that the fusion reaction rate per unit volume and time f
scales with f µ nA nB , where nA, B denotes the density of the
two reacting particle species. The creation of such non-
equilibrium ion beams is to a good extent feasible by using
laser driven particle acceleration. The proof of concept for
fusion reactions that were induced by laser accelerated par-
ticle beams was demonstrated by different authors [18–20].
The experimental data indicated exceptionally high fusion
yields up to 109 reaction per shot, which was about 0.3 ns
FWHM [21], for the boron–proton reactions. Another
advantage is the possibility to focus the ion particle beams
with strong magnetic field gradients into a small region in the
centre of the reactor where the majority of fusion reactions is
taking place. It was demonstrated that a laser-accelerated
proton beam can be focused to a spot of several 100 μm2 by a
permanent magnet quadrupole (PMQ) lens with a field gra-
dient of ca 500 T m−1 [22]. Such a compression of the particle
beam enhances the fusion reaction rate f considerably com-
pared to a conventional electrostatic confinement fusor, in
which the core plasma has usually some cm diameter. With
this magnetic lens it was possible to decrease the beam dia-
meter by a factor of 103 compared to the unfocused beam.
This paper is devoted to the implementation of these
concepts into a relatively simple fusion reactor design that
allows a steady state operation without creating any neutrons
in the process. Furthermore, higher fusion yields become
feasible due to the suppression of upscatter losses and the
reduction of the size of the core region of the reactor, where
most of the nuclear reactions take place.
2. Technical concept
The principal reactor design is shown in the following
figure 1, where only two driving lasers are depicted. How-
ever, the number of lasers is in principle arbitrary, it has just
to be assured that the beams can converge under some small
angle, so that the laser beams are not directed back into one of
the other resonators. It has to be noted that in figure 1 only a
two-dimensional arrangement of the incident laser beams is
depicted for simplicity but, of course, on a spherical chamber
also a three-dimensional layout can easily be implemented.
The energy generation is based on one of the following
nuclear fusion reactions:
p+ + 6Li  4He + 3He + 4.0 MeV, (1 )
2
J Gruenwald
p+ + 7Li  2 4He + 17.2 MeV, (2 )
p+ + 11B  3 4He + 8.7 MeV. (3 )
As mentioned earlier, the considerations and calculations
are based on equation (2) due to the high fusion yield and the
abundance of 7Li but the basic principles also hold for the
other two reactions.
The technical construction for the fusion reactor is quite
simple. It is a spherical, grounded vacuum chamber with a
concentric high voltage cathode in the middle. The purpose of
this cathode will be discussed later on in more detail. Each
laser beam is initially divided by a 50/50 beam splitter, which
allows a high degree of symmetry, when it comes to the
plasma generation. The shorter optical path is then equipped
with a delay stage (DLS). The purpose of this DLS is twofold:
firstly it compensates the spatial differences of the two beams
and secondly it also provides a rectification of the different
particle velocities of the reactive species (e.g. lithium ions and
protons). The targets for each laser system consist of one
lithium foil and one polymer foil target on a spindle. A sui-
table choice for the polymer target material might be poly-
imide with a thickness between 12.5 and 25 μm, since it was
shown that proton beams with several MeV energy can be
extracted efficiently from such foils with a femtosecond laser
system. It is known from literature that the energy gain for the
charged particles due to an acceleration by a laser beam is
connected to the laser power via DE [MeV] = 31 PL [TW]
[23]. Hence, to achieve a 5 MeV beam, a laser power of 26
GW is sufficient. Such output powers are easily reached with
modern short pulse laser systems. The highest conversion
efficiency from laser to kinetic energy in these experiments
was about 3% [24]. The smallest energy spreads achieved in
laser-accelerated proton beams were determined between 1%
[25] and 6% [26] for different laser systems. Hence, this kind
of proton sources can reasonably be regarded as mono-
energetic. This clearly diminishes potential energy losses in
the reactor core due to upscattering.
The target, which is depicted in figure 1(b), is chosen to
be a thin foil of a motorised spindle that can also be moved in
the vertical direction. This design enables the long term
operation of the fusion reactor. The foil gets unspooled from
one spindle and wound up onto the other while the laser is
shooting. After one complete cycle the whole foil holder
moves vertically and the winding and unwinding of the foil is
reversed. The holes, produced by the high energy laser beam
are indicated in the front view of figure 1(b). By imple-
menting a revolving scheme for several of these foil holders
with a suitable vacuum lock between the main chamber and a
replacement compartment for the substitution of the foil
holders the reactor needs no shut down for refilling the fuel.
Hence, it becomes possible to run this fusion device com-
pletely continuously. The refuelling process is also made
easier due to the lack of neutrons as a byproduct of the
nuclear reactions in the vessel. The major remaining hazard
originates from hard x-rays that are produced by high energy
collisions in the form of bremsstrahlung but these are much
easier shielded than the high energy neutrons from other non-
aneutronic fusion reactions such as D–T reactions [27].
Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 59 (2017) 025011 J Gruenwald

Figure 1. (a) Schematic of the laser-accelerated, IEC fusion device. Abbreviations: L ... laser, BS ... beam splitter, M ... mirror, DLS ... delay
stage, S ... magnetic lens, BD ... beam dumper. (b) Top, front and side view of the target spindle with the laser induced holes (front view).
The spindle is vertically movable to ensure a longer operation time of the reactor.

The next important feature of this new reactor type are
the magnetic lenses (denoted with ‘S’ in figure 1), which
are in this case not for the improvement of the plasma
confinement but for focusing the highly energetic ion
beams into the smallest volume possible. There are actu-
ally two possible options for the construction of these
magnets, either miniature PMQ, which have to be moun-
ted inside the vacuum chamber, or electromagnet
solenoids. The former have considerably higher field
gradients up to 500 T m −1 while the latter offer more
flexibility in terms of focal length, etc. However,
electromagnetic lenses usually do not exceed field gra-
dients of some 10 T m−1 but they are also used in typical
laser-plasma acceleration experiments [28]. The theor-
etical aspects for the magnets and the rest of the experi-
ment will be discussed in the next section.

3
Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 59 (2017) 025011
Figure 2. Focusing strength for the relevant fusion reactants as a
function of the field gradient of the magnetic lens.
3. Theoretical considerations
3.1. Magnetic lenses
The focal length of a quadrupole magnetic lens is given by
[29]:
1 reactions. Hence, it is necessary to cool the magnets actively
f= , (4 )
kl
where l represents the quadrupole length and k is the focusing
strength, which is defined by:
0.3 · r [T m-1] Z
k» · .
p [GeV] A
Here ρ denotes the magnetic field gradient, p is the beam
momentum, Z is the number of net charge of the accelerated
particles and A is the atomic mass of the particles in amu.
The following figure 2 depicts the focusing strength for
the possible particle species (p+, 7Li II, 7Li III, 7Li IV—with
the ionisation states of the lithium ions in spectroscopic
notation), which can be produced by the driving lasers. The
curves are depicted for a 5 MeV beam as this energy corre-
sponds to the peak in the fusion cross section.
It can be seen that the focusing strength is highest for the
protons due to their low mass, followed by the lithium ions in
descending order of their ionisation state. These values for the
focusing strength have been used to calculate the axial size of
the magnetic lenses according to equation (4), which was
solved with respect to l for a fixed focal length of 1 m. The
results are presented in figure 3, where it can also be seen that
for a focusing length in the order of some metres rather small
quadrupoles with medium B-field gradients are sufficient:
It is worth noting that each particle species will have a
different focus length at a given magnetic field gradient and/
or a a fixed quadrupole length. The biggest difference in focal
length will occur between the protons and the different
ionisation states of lithium due to the single charge and
comparable low mass of the former ones. However, this issue
is automatically resolved by separating the proton source
J Gruenwald
Figure 3. Axial length of the magnetic lens as a function of the field
gradient for a focal length of one metre.
target from the 7Li target, which allows to choose the para-
meters of the quadrupoles independently. On the other hand,
there is still a considerable spread between the different
ionisation levels of the lithium ions.
There will be a considerable heat load on the chamber
wall and the inner components due to the aneutronic fusion
or to place them outside the reaction chamber. In the latter
case the water cooled chamber wall will act as a heat shield
for the magnets. The necessary flow rate M, which keeps the
magnet temperature below the maximum value is then
determined by the surface heating power P, the specific heat
(5 ) capacity of water cp (4.2 kJ kg-1 K-1) and the maximum
increase in temperature that still keeps the magnets opera-
P
tional DT : M = c ·DT . To check the limitations of the cooling
p
capacity of such a reactor, a maximum heat load on the
reactor wall of 10 MW m−2 is assumed. Hence, a spherical
reactor chamber with 1 m radius is limited to a total heat load
of 126 MW. For a crude estimation, the available exper-
imental data from [21] will be used. These data were obtained
for proton-boron reactions but they will be taken as bench-
mark values for the following calculation. This is reasonable
as the number of fusion reactions in the proposed reactor can
relatively easy be tailored by the laser input power, the pulse
duration and the laser repetition rate. As each proton–7Li
reaction produces 17.2 MeV, one single shot with a pulse
duration of 0.3 ns and a total of 109 fusion reactions will yield
an output power of 109 ´ 1.72 ´ 107 eV =  3 ´ 10-3 J in
0.3 ns, which corresponds to 10 MJ. This number might be
enhanced at least by an order of magnitude and would still be
well within the maximum heat load limit.
3.2. Energy gain estimation
Before examining possible optimisation techniques for the
reactor it is useful to get an reasonable estimation on the
energy gain that can be expected from such a device in
comparison to conventional IEC fusion schemes. In order to
do that the steps from Paul [30] will be followed. He defined
4
Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 59 (2017) 025011
the energy gain factor as:
Wp
Q=
Wr + Wloss
with the energy that is produced by unit volume Wp, the
energy stored in the particle beam Wr and an approximation
for the particle loss due to upscattering events Wloss. The
parameters are defined as follows:
(n - n˙tE )2
Wp = tE Pf = tE ásvñ E f .
2 Hence, it makes more sense to compare the energy input per
Here tE is the energy confinement time, which is
dependent on the beam length l and the average energy of the
l m
beam Eav: tE = (2E )1i 2 , ásvñ is the averaged reactivity
av
(2.1 ´ 10-20 m3 s-1 at the resonance energy of 5 MeV), Ef is
the energy released in a fusion reaction (17.2 MeV) and ṅ
describes the particle loss rate:
4n · exp ( - 1.5) n
n˙ » - 0.46 = - 0.23
t p t throughout the beam, a substantial increase in the particle
with the ion–ion collision time τ [31]:
⎛ m ⎞1 2 ⎛ T ⎞3 2 TeV
3 2
´ 10 6
t = ⎜ i⎟ ⎜ i⎟ , (9 )
⎝ m e ⎠ ⎝ Te ⎠ 5 · Z n · ln (L)
4
where mi denotes the ion mass, TeV is the beam energy in eV,
e the elementary charge, Z the net charge of the particle and
ln (L) is the Coulomb logarithm. If a typical plasma density of
n = 1018cm-3 for laser accelerated plasmas is taken to be
accelerated up to Eav = 5 MeV, the Coulomb logarithm is
≈26. Due to the mass ratio of electrons and ions TTi » 0.03.
e
Hence, equation (9) yields for completely ionised Li atoms
(i.e. Z = 3, mi = 1.16 ´ 10-26 kg) a value of
t = 6.2 ´ 10-7 s and, hence, a particle loss rate n = −3.7
´10 23 s-1. It has to be noted that the calculations were done
for the ‘worst case’, i.e. for fully ionised lithium atoms
because the loss rate depends on Z4. Thus, the result repre-
sents a upper limit for the loss rate in the reactor. If ions with
a single charge would be taken into account the losses would
be more than two orders of magnitude lower.
Furthermore, the energy confinement time for a beam
length of one metre is tE = 1.08 ´ 10-7 s and thus the
energy production per unit volume is Wp = 2.92 kJ cm−3.
Wr = n · Eav.
According to equation (10) Wr = 1018
106 ´ 1.6 ´ 10-19 = 8 ´ 10 5J cm3. Finally,
Wloss » n˙tE Eav
3
yields an energy loss of 32 kJ cm . Inserting those numbers
into equation (6) yields a very discouraging result for the
efficiency of 0.001 for conventional IEC devices. However, it
has to be considered that in a laser-accelerated plasma IEC the
pulse duration and, thus, the temporal length of the plasma is
ns down to fs, which is several orders of magnitude shorter
than the ‘classical’ energy confinement time. For this reason
the conventional model breaks down for this new type of
reactor. Just setting tE  ¥ compared to the pulse duration
would only lead to a fast divergence of the energy yield.
J Gruenwald
Table 1. Radii for the particle species involved in the fusion
reactions.
(6 ) Particle species Radius
Proton 1.5 ´ 10-15 m
D 1.6 ´ 10-15 m
T 1.8 ´ 10-15 m
7
Li 2.4 ´ 10-15 m
(7 )
particle with the fusion energy and estimate the fraction of
particles that have to undergo fusion reactions in order to
achieve the energy break-even. The fraction of particles in the
E 5 MeV
beam, which have to fuse is Eav = 17.2 MeV » 0.3. This is
f
already a reasonable result but for further estimations it can
also be taken into account that the total energy production in a
certain volume scales with n2 for any finite energy confine-
(8 ) ment time. If the particle number is roughly constant
density can be achieved by focussing the beam with magnetic
or plasma lenses. Steinke et al [32] have recently demon-
strated the focussing of a laser-accelerated plasma with a
density of 1018cm-3 from 18 μm diameter, which was the
diameter of the laser at the focal point, down to 5 μm with
such lenses. This corresponds to a reduction of the radius
down to 28% of the initial radius. As the volume of a cylinder
scales with r2, the related density will increase by a factor of
12.8 and the fusion yield by a factor of ca 160. This result has
no direct impact on the energy gain per fusion reaction, of
course, but as the densities rise, more fusion reactions will
take place in a given volume for a given fusion cross section.
As the fusion cross section goes nearly linearly with the
particle energy below the resonance peak [15] the particle
beam energy can be lowered and will still yield the same
number of fusion reactions. This, on the other hand, improves
E
the fraction of Eav also by roughly two orders of magnitude
f
and brings the number of necessary fusion reaction down to
about 0.003.
One more question that should be considered is the
estimation of the energy barrier for the fusion reactions
between 7Li and protons in comparison to the more conven-
(10) tional D–T reactions. For a simple estimation the equation for
the Coulomb barrier at the contact point of two rigid, sphe-
´ 5´ rical particles can be used:
1 qa qb
(11) U= · . (12)
4p 0 (R a + Rb)
Here q denotes the charge of each particle (assumed to be
one for simplicity) and the radii of the colliding particles. The
latter are calculated with the nuclear radius equation
R = R0 3 A , where A is the atomic mass number and
R0 = 1.25 ´ 10-15 m . This yields the following radii for
each species as shown in table 1:
From equation (12) the energy barriers are calculated to
be 0.4 MeV for the D–T reactions and 0.37 MeV for the
lithium–proton reactions. As the kinetic energies that can be
5
Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 59 (2017) 025011
Figure 4. Illustrative PIC code simulation of the electron density
distribution in a laser-accelerated plasma (courtesy of Khikhlukha).
reached with this fusion scheme are several orders of mag-
nitude higher, these potential barriers will easily be overcome.
3.3. Runtime compensation
Especially at beam energies up to several 10 or 100 of MeV the
electrons will outrun the ion very quickly because of their low
mass. This movement is actually two-dimensional, radially and
axially, with different physical implications on the beam. The
separation between electrons and ions in the radial direction is
caused by the ponderomotive force, which is defined by:
e2
FPM = -  (E 2 ) (13)
4 mw 2
with m being the particle mass, ω the angular frequency of the
laser beam and E the amplitude of the electric field. The sign of
the charge does not alter the direction of the force, so ions and
electrons are both pushed out of the centre of the laser beam
but the high inertia of the ions will accelerate them at a much
slower pace. This acts as a kind of confinement mechanism that
keeps the positive ions concentrated rather close to the centre
axis of the laser beam, as depicted in the following figure 4.
Such a charge separation by the ponderomotive force in plasma
was also experimentally confirmed by Levine and Crawford
[33]. It can be seen that the core of the plasma beam around
x=0 is depleted of electrons. The electrons are driven away
from the central axis and form a potential well that traps the
ions inside the beam.
Thus, a cylindrical plasma with an ion rich core and a
negatively charged hull is created, which is beneficial for the
fusion processes because the divergence of the ion rich
plasma due to the ponderomotive force is rather small. A
relatively well collimated ion beam can directly undergo
fusion in the small core volume of the reactor with its
neighbouring beams. Hence, the radial drift of the electrons
need not be suppressed.
The axial runaway tendency of the negative charges can
be utilised to further enhance the fusion yield of the IEC device
6
J Gruenwald
Figure 5. Schematic of the distances, which have to be covered by
the particles, starting at the injection point of the beam at z=0. R
denotes the chamber radius, while r is the radius of the runtime
compensation grid electrode.
if the runtime difference of the electrons and ions can be
matched in a way that the electrons form a strongly negative
charged space charge in the centre of the reactor. As soon as
such a virtual cathode is established, the ions will be acceler-
ated further and a deep potential well will be formed that traps
the ions efficiently. The possibility to achieve that is given by
applying a large negative potential on the inner electrode of the
fusor, which will slow down the incoming electrons and speed
up the ions accordingly. The ratio of gain and loss in velocity
within a collisionless beam plasma is just determined by the
DV m
ratio Dv = me of the particles. Here v and V denote the
i
electron and ion velocity, respectively. This ratio obviously
holds for the initial kinetic particle energy, which is provided
through the laser driven acceleration process as well as for the
energetic changes imposed by additional electrical potentials.
A simple example shall illustrate the advantage of a
correction between the electron and ion runtime dis-
crepancies. A beam energy of 5 MeV corresponds to an
electron velocity that is already close to the speed of light
while for a singly charged 7Li ion the speed is only about 3%
of c. In other words, while the electron will reach the centre of
a reactor with a radius R=1 m within 3 ns, the lithium ions
will need about 100 ns. In order to effectively contribute to
the formation of a potential well the electrons should be in the
near vicinity of the reactor centre until the ions can also reach
the core. As depicted in the following figure 5 a useful outer
limit for the electron position at the time the ions reach the
edge of the cathode at (R − r), is (R + r) (the beam in figure 5
is assumed to travel in the positive z direction).
If the beam is assumed to start at z=0 with an initial
velocity v0, the equation of motion for each particle species
reads as:
2
ZeE = m e, i (s - v0, (e, i ) t ) . (14)
t2
Here Z is the net charge of the particle (Z=1 for elec-
trons and protons and Z … 1 for all other ions) and s is the
distance from the point of origin. Hence, solving (14) for t
yields:
⎡ 2ZeEs ⎤1 2
⎢⎣ me, i + v0, (e, i ) ⎥⎦ + v0, (e, i )
t= , (15)
ZeE
m e, i
where only the positive solution is physical. As the ions
Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 59 (2017) 025011
Figure 6. Magnitude of the electrical field strength for the runtime
correction of electrons and ions in dependence of the radius of the
spherical cathode.
should reach the position (R − r) at the same time when the
electrons reach (R + r), both runtime contributions can be set
equal and one obtains:
⎛ ⎡ 2eE · (R + r ) ⎤1 2 ⎞ DT =
m e · ⎜⎜ ⎢ + c⎥ + c⎟⎟
⎝⎣ me ⎦ ⎠
⎛⎡ ⎤1 2 ⎞ ground, I is the current carried by the particle beams, t is the
m 2ZeE · (R - r ) me me ⎟
= i · ⎜⎜ ⎢ + c⎥ + c⎟ .
Z ⎝⎣ mi mi ⎦ mi ⎠
(16)
Here it was used that the initial velocity of the particles
(i.e. at 5 MeV) is already very close to the speed of light c for
m
the electrons and, thus, me · c for the ions. The analytical
i emission. To illustrate this the field emission of a tungsten
solution to equation (16) is too lengthy to be presented here in
its complete form, hence only the numerical solutions for the
different ion species and protons are shown in the following
figure 6:
It is evident from the simulation results in figure 6 that
the radius of the runtime correction electrode has to be small
in order to minimise the necessary electrical field strength. As
the radius of the whole reactor R was set to unity the radial
dependence can be interpreted in terms of the ratio of elec-
trode to chamber radius. Hence a good upper boundary for the
radius of the inner electrode is reached at a ratio of
r R » 20%. Within this limit the field strength
(≈300 kV m−1 at r=0.2) varies approximately linearly with
the cathode radius and the calculated curves for the protons
and singly charged Li ions are nearly congruent, which allows
a very accurate runtime compensation. Furthermore, it has to
be noted that the variation of the electric field strength is more
prominent for different charges, rather than for different
masses of the particles. This finding stresses the importance of
finding laser parameters that are not only capable of produ-
cing monoenergetic beams but also favour the creation of
singly charged ions rather than species with multiple ionis-
ation stages. Lower field strengths also avoid an additional
problem, which will be discussed in the following subsection.
7
J Gruenwald
3.4. Schottky field emission
As shown in the previous subsection the runtime corrections
are achieved by rather high electric fields, which can lead to a
Schottky emission of electrons from the cathode surface. As a
strong emission of additional electrons can alter the electrical
field inside the chamber and hence the runtime correction and
the confinement of the fusion plasma, significantly, this pro-
blem shall be discussed with more details. The Schottky
emission can be described with a modified Richardson law:
⎛ W - DW ⎞
j = AG · T 2 · exp ⎜ - ⎟ (17)
⎝ kT ⎠
which holds for E  108 V m-1. Here j is the current density,
AG = A0 · lR is Richardson’s constant (A0=1.2 × 106
Am−2 K−2, modified by a correction factor lR , which is
usually in the order of 0.5), W is the work function of the
e3E
material (e.g. 4.5 eV for tungsten) and DW = 4p 0
.
It can be seen that also the temperature of the cathode
plays a crucial role but for a single shot the temperature
increase DT is neglible as can be seen from the temperature
dependence on the electrical current drawn by the electrode:
UItg
, (18)
mC
where U is the voltage on the electrode with respect to the
duration of the laser pulse, γ is a correction factor that takes
into account the transparency of the electrode for the charged
particles, m is the mass of the electrode and C is the heat
capacity of the electrode material. However, for a steady state
operation with laser repetition rates in the kHz range the
temperature rise can play a considerable role for the Schottky
electrode at room temperature and an elevated temperature of
2000 K is plotted in the following figure 7:
It becomes evident that at room temperature there will
not be any measureable field emission of electrons, no matter
what the field strength is (at least up to several MV m−1).
However, if the heating due to an electrical current or intense
radiation from the plasma becomes severe, Schottky emission
might pose a problem as 1.1 ampere per m2 correspond to
roughly 1019 electrons m-2 s-1, which can create a con-
siderable space charge cloud at the vicinity of the cathode
surface. In order to avoid unnecessary heating or high electric
fields on the surface the cathode should be made as small as
possible and externally cooled, if practicable.
4. Conclusion and outlook
Within this paper a novel type of aneutronic fusion reactor
was presented and studied in detail. It was argued that the
fusion gain can be raised by orders of magnitude by magnetic
focussing and electrostatic runtime compensation. Estima-
tions of the energy yield were made, which showed that if a
fraction of 2 ´ 10-3 of the injected particles undergo fusion
reactions (in the case of 7Li–proton reactions) the energetic
Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 59 (2017) 025011
Figure 7. Schottky emission in dependence of the electric field
strength on the cathode for room temperature and for a strongly
elevated temperature of a tungsten electrode.
break even point can be reached with this device. Further-
more, it was argued that this kind of aneutronic reactor can
overcome several hurdles, which hamper the commercialisa-
tion of conventional fusion reactors, such as the possibility of
steady state operation, the lower shielding requirements due
to the absence of neutrons and the capability of producing
monoenergetic ion beams with high kinetic energy and low
energy spread for an optimisation of the fusion processes.
Especially the last point is of importance when it comes to
solve some problems of conventional electrostatic confine-
ment fusion devices, which suffer high energy losses if they
are operated with particle beams with Maxwellian energy
distributions. Additionally, simulations were made that show
how to choose the optimal radius of the inner electrode and its
electrical field strength in order to tune the ion confinement by
forming potential wells and by making use of the runtime
difference for electrons and ions from the laser-accelerated
plasma. The necessary basic technology (i.e. regarding the
high power laser systems) is already very well within the
capabilities of currently available systems.
On the other hand, it is also useful at this point to
mention some of the uncertainties regarding the realisation of
such a fusion reactor in order to stimulate further research and
development in these directions. Based on the points brought
forward in this work the largest technological challenge at the
moment is the development of laser systems that can not only
produce high energy but are also long-time stable and are able
to deliver pulses with high repetition rates, low energy spread
and excellent reproducibility. As a lot of work is done in this
field at the moment, one can be optimistic that these problems
will be tackled in the near future. However, the main uncer-
tainty lies not in the development of suitable technologies but
in the fundamental understanding of spherical confined
plasmas. For example, there is nearly no information avail-
able on the nature of instabilities, which can occur in such
non-cartesian plasma geometries. Although some first
attempts have been made [34–36] in that direction the
8
J Gruenwald
physical understanding is still very limited. Some instabilities
might pose serious problems for the operation of such fusion
reactors. Others might be even beneficial as they can be
employed to diagnose the plasma and the fusion products via
the modulation of transit time oscillations through the gridded
cathode [36]. Thus, this paper does not aim at delivering a
ready made solution for a technological and economical
viable small scale fusion reactor but at providing a first step
towards an ultimate scientific judgment whether this type of
reactor proves to be feasible.
Acknowledgments
The contribution of D Khikhlukha (ELI beamlines—LUX
team), who provided one of his magnificent laser-plasma-
acceleration simulations for the use in this work is gratefully
acknowledged.
References
[1] Sheffield J 2016 Some observations on future directions in
fusion energy research J. Fusion Energy 35 107–10
[2] Castillo F, Milanese M, Moroso R and Pouzo J 2000 Evidence
of thermal and non-thermal mechanisms coexisting in dense
plasma focus D–D nuclear reactions J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
33 141
[3] Soto L 2005 New trends and future perspectives on plasma
focus research Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 47 A361
[4] Farnsworth P T 1966 Electric discharge device for producing
interactions between nuclei US Patent 3,258,402
[5] Hirsch R L 1967 Inertial-electrostatic confinement of ionized
fusion gases J. Appl. Phys. 38 4522–34
[6] Ohnishi M, Hoshino C, Yoshikawa K, Masuda K and
Yamamoto Y 2000 Beam optics in inertial electrostatic
confinement fusion Rev. Sci. Instrum. 71 1210–2
[7] Cipiti B B and Kulcinski G L 2003 Embedded D-3 He fusion
reactions and medical isotope production in an inertial
electrostatic confinement device Fusion Sci. Technol. 44
534–8
[8] McGuire T J 2007 Improved lifetimes and synchronization
behavior in multi-grid inertial electrostatic confinement
fusion devices PhD Thesis MIT
[9] McGuire T J and Sedwick R J 2008 Numerical predictions of
enhanced ion confinement in a multi-grid IEC device 44th
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Join Propulsion Conf. Exhibit
[10] MacLeod C and Gow K S 2010 A reconsideration of
electrostatically accelerated and confined nuclear fusion for
space applications J. Br. Interplanet. Soc. 63 192–205
[11] Damideh V, Sadighzadeh A, Koohi A, Aslezaeem A,
Heidarnia A, Abdollahi N, Abbasi Davani F and Damideh R
2012 Experimental study of the iranian inertial electrostatic
confinement fusion device as a continuous neutron generator
J. Fusion Energy 31 109–11
[12] Krall N A 1992 The polywel: a spherically convergent ion
focus concept Fusion Sci. Technol. 22 42–9
[13] Park J, Krall N A, Sieck P E, Offermann D T, Skillicorn M,
Sanchez A, Davis K, Alderson E and Lapenta G 2015 High-
energy electron confinement in a magnetic cusp
configuration Phys. Rev. X 5 021024
[14] Miley G H, Towner H and Ivich N 1974 Fusion cross sections
and reactivities http://osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/
4014032
Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 59 (2017) 025011
[15] Mashnik S G, Chadwick M B, Hughes H G, Little R C,
MacFarlane R E, Waters L S and Young P G 2000 7-Li (p,
n) nucleardata library for incident proton energies to 150
MeV arXiv:nucl-th/0011066
[16] Rider T H 1995 A general critique of inertial-electrostatic
confinement fusion systems Phys. Plasmas 2 1853–72
[17] Hirsch R L 1972 Electrostatic containment in fusion reactors
US Patent 3,664,920 (https://google.com/patents/
US3664920)
[18] Belyaev V S, Matafonov A P, Vinogradov V I, Krainov V P,
Lisitsa V S, Roussetski A S, Ignatyev G N and
Andrianov V P 2005 Observation of neutronless fusion
reactions in picosecond laser plasmas Phys. Rev. E 72
026406
[19] Labaune C, Baccou C, Depierreux S, Goyon C, Loisel G,
Yahia V and Rafelski J 2013 Fusion reactions initiated by
laser-accelerated particle beams in a laser-produced plasma
Nat. Commun. 4 1–6
[20] Hora H et al 2015 Fusion energy using avalanche increased
boron reactions for block-ignition by ultrahigh power
picosecond laser pulses Laser Part. Beams 33 607–19
[21] Picciotto A et al 2014 Boron–proton nuclear-fusion
enhancement induced in boron-doped silicon targets by low-
contrast pulsed laser Phys. Rev. X 4 031030
[22] Schollmeier M et al 2008 Controlled transport and focusing of
laser-accelerated protons with miniature magnetic devices
Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 055004
[23] Esarey E, Schroeder C B and Leemans W P 2009 Physics of
laser-driven plasma-based electron accelerators Rev. Mod.
Phys. 81 1229
[24] Nishiuchi M et al 2008 Efficient production of a collimated
mev proton beam from a polyimide target driven by an
intense femtosecond laser pulse Phys. Plasmas 15
053104
[25] Schwoerer H, Pfotenhauer S, Jäckel O, Amthor K-U,
Liesfeld B, Ziegler W, Sauerbrey R, Ledingham K W D and
Esirkepov T 2006 Laser-plasma acceleration of quasi-
View publication stats
J Gruenwald
monoenergetic protons from microstructured targets Nature
439 445–8
[26] Zou D B, Zhuo H B, Yu T P, Wu H C, Yang X H, Shao F Q,
Ma Y Y, Yin Y and Ge Z Y 2015 Enhanced laser-radiation-
pressure-driven proton acceleration by moving focusing
electric-fields in a foil-in-cone target Phys. Plasmas 22
023109
[27] Simmons G 1978 Structural shielding design and evaluation
for medical use of x-rays & gamma rays of energies Up to
10 MeV NCRP Report 49 NCRP Publications, Washington,
DC 126p
Simmons G 1978 J. Nucl. Med. 19 228
[28] van Tilborg J et al 2015 Active plasma lensing for relativistic
laser-plasma-accelerated electron beams Phys. Rev. Lett. 115
184802
[29] Wiedemann H 2003 Synchrotron radiation Particle
Accelerator Physics (Berlin: Springer) pp 300–36
[30] Paul R K 2015 Investigation on the feasibility of fusion in a
compressed beam of ions subject to an electrostatic field
J. Plasma Phys. 81 905810107
[31] Chen F F 2010 Introduction to Plasma Physics and Controlled
Fusion, Plasma Physics vol 1 (New York: Springer)
[32] Steinke S et al 2016 Multistage coupling of independent laser-
plasma accelerators Nature 530 190–3
[33] Levine J S and Crawford F W 1980 Plasma double-layers
produced by ponderomotive force Int. J. Electron. Theor.
Exp. 49 465–86
[34] Jukui X and He L 2003 Modulational instability of cylindrical
and spherical dust ion-acoustic waves Phys. Plasmas 10
339–42
[35] Bandara R and Khachan J 2015 Nonlinear saturation of the
ion-electron buneman instability in a spherical positively
pulsed gridded inertial electrostatic confinement device
Phys. Plasmas 22 082701
[36] Gruenwald J and Fröhlich M 2015 Coupling of transit time
instabilities in electrostatic confinement fusion devices Phys.
Plasmas 22 070701