California Science & Engineering Corp. Preprint CALSEC P5

Transcription

1 California Science & Engineering Corp. Preprint CALSEC P5 October 20, 2014 Fundamental physics oversight of critical ion energy in International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) and proposed remedy* Bogdan C. Maglich, Dan W. Scott, Tim Hester CALSEC California Science & Engineering Corp., Irvine, California ABSTRACT It is shown here that difficulties encountered in achieving thermonuclear ignition in magnetic fusion systems within past half a century, are mostly caused by a largely overlooked atomic (non-nuclear) effect,rather than by inadequate size short of postulated critical size. Experiments in tokamaks failed to meet requirement for electromagnetic confinement that ion collision energy be greater than critical energy, E c= 200 KeV, closely tied to atomic unit of velocity v au=2.2x10 6 ms -1. All trials were conducted at KeV, at which plasma gets de-confined by neutralization of ions via charge transfer collisions with giant cross-section, 10 9 barns, 100 times greater than that for ionization collisions that tends to counter countering neutralization and times that for DT fusion. Longest ion confinement time classically possible at sub-critical energies with neutral beam injection is <10-6 s vs. 3.8 seconds required for ITER ignition. Magnetic ion confinement is not feasible at thermonuclear temperatures using neutral or charged fuel injection. In contrast, at ion energies above E c, ionization prevails over neutralization; magnetic fusion is viable as confinement times of over 20 s have been routinely observed at ~1 MeV with charged (ion) injection. To make ITER viable, ion energy must be increased to 1 MeV; injection of neutral radioactive DT fuel replaced with charged, natural, nonradioactive deuterium, giving rise to compact aneutronic ITER with direct conversion into rf power. * Presented to Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, US Department of Energy on 11/11/14; summary reported at T.E.A. Conference 6, Chicago, May 30, Ref

2 Introduction. In his Nobel lecture 1, Kapitza posited that the limited success in the path to controlled fusion had been caused by the inadequate physical size of the reactors. The main difficulty of obtaining a thermonuclear reaction in Tokamaks is the heating of deuterium and tritium ions. Heating efficiency of fusion reactors, in analogy with fission reactors, is greater for larger size. Kapitza postulated the existence of a minimal critical size of fusion reactor; the practical, necessary dimension of which will be determined by the engineering rather than Physics; They may turn out to be too large to make them feasible. Kapitza s belief that the answer to controlled fusion will be found in enormity of size, has been the lodestar of global fusion programs to this date; ITER is envisioned to prove it. It is shown here that thermonuclear ignition was not achieved for the past 60 years because all tokamak experiments were conducted at the thermonuclear ion energies, KeV. At these energies, magnetic confinement is prevented by the charge transfer collisions, a class of atomic reactions between ions and neutral atoms or molecules ( neutrals ) - Reaction (2). Charge transfer tends to destroy beams and plasmas by electrically neutralizing the hot ions within, with a cross-section, σ barns, which is times that of DT fusion; it is also 10 2 times larger than that of the plasmabuilding ionization collisions which counter the neutralization, σ 01 = 10 7 b - Reactions (3.a, 3.b). At D + energy ~200 KeV, charge transfer and ionization are equal. Above 200 KeV, the neutralization to ionization ratio reverses itself; ionization becomes 10 2 times greater than neutralization at ~ 1MeV (fig. 1.A). Physical meaning of the reversal is the atomic physics requirement for ionization that the ion collision velocity in lab be greater than the atomic unit of velocity, v au = 2.2 x 10 6 ms -1, which is the orbital velocity of the electron in H atom 2. We will refer to the ion energy corresponding to equal cross sections, σ 10 = σ 01, as to the critical energy for magnetic confinement, approximately given by: E C 25k < M > KeV critical energy for magnetic confinement (1) where: 25 KeV is lab kinetic energy of ion with mass M=1 and velocity = v au; <M> = average ion mass in a.m.u., reactivity weighted and k = empirical factor for difference between ion energy at v au and at σ 10 = σ 01. In general, mono-, bi- and three atomic ions are present in plasma 46, each with a different reactivity. In Fig. 2.B, we have included 3 charge transfer reactions: D 2+ +D 2, D 1+ +D 2, and D 1+ +D 1 with <M> = 3, from which k=200/ (25x3) = 2.7. An example of charge transfer (CT) reaction is: D + + T 0 D 0 + T +. neutralization of fast ion (2) Hot D + picks up an electron from the cold T 0, becomes D 0, and runs out of the magnetic confinement to the walls, thus shortening τ E by lowering the hot/cold ion density ratio. Examples of ionization reactions (ION) are: 2

3 D + + T 0 D + + T + + e ion - impact ionization, (3.a) e + T 0 T + + 2e electron - impact ionization. (3.b) Fast D + or e - removes the electron from T 0 while remaining charged, thus enhancing the hot/cold density ratio, hence increases τ E. Reactions (2) and (3.a, b) have been ignored in the Lawson Criterion 3 and in the theory and practice of all 156 past and 30 current tokamaks including ITER design 6. Lawson s critical temperature KeV needed for self-sustaining system is based solely on nuclear data, without considering atomic physics confinement properties. The criterion was originally derived for inertial confinement (magnetic field B=0) and fully ionized plasma (density of neutrals, n 0 =0), in which neither of the Reactions (2) and (3.a, b) can take place, hence they do not belong to the energy balance. Rationale for the exclusion of Reaction (2) by the experimentalists was the tenet 4, 5, dating back to the 1950 s, that charge transfer reactivity, σ 01 v, is negligible compared to that of the ionization, σ 01 v Predominance of ionization over neutralization that ostensibly results in self-generated absolute vacuum by the burnout of neutrals into ions at all ion temperatures - has been the fulcrum of fusion reactor design to date. Measurements at Belfast 2,35 in the 1980s, however, have revealed that the difference between the neutralization and ionization reactivities is a strong function of the laboratory ion energy, T D. Referring to data in Fig. 1.B, the gap acts like a sink for D + ions that enter the energy band KeV. The neutralization-to-ionization reactivity ratio is U = σ 10v. (4) σ 01 v ION Here, neutralization and ionization reactivities are σ 10 v and σ 10 v ION = σ 01 v i + σ 01 v e, the latter is the sum of ion and electron impact ionization. U as a function of T D (lab), in Fig. 3 shows the neutralization barrier centered at 20 KeV, ending up at E c = 200 KeV. Since ionization also dominates around 0.5 KeV, it appears that the tokamak builders assumed the ionization dominance at all ion energies between 0.5 and 600 KeV (dashed line in Fig. 3), hence burnout was erroneously assumed in the subcritical regime. Early evidence for E c was observed above E c: (1) DCX-1 experiment at Oak Ridge 4 : Density of a 300 KeV proton beam (velocity equivalent to 600 KeV D) increased 40-fold from that at 50 KeV and measured τ E = sec (vacuum corrected). (2) OGRA experiment 8 (Kurchatov): Protons of 200 KeV (400 KeV D) were confined for τ E = 0.2 sec (vacuum corrected). 3) Colliding beams at 15 GeV achieved at CERN s Intersecting Storage Rings (ISR) were coasting with τ E 3 months 9. 3

4 We note that Reactions (2) and (3.a, 3.b) are only examples of a plurality of combination of D 0, T 0, D 2 0 and T 20. Since we had no access to T data, D data were used throughout. 2. Classical Ion lifetime against neutralization. Lifetime of fast D + against neutralization, τ 10, is inversely proportional to the neutralization rate, I 10 = 1 τ 10 = n 0 σ 10 v. (5) Here, < τ 10 v > is found in Fig. 2.b. Number density of neutrals as a function of p is n 0 = p torr m 3. For neutral beam injection, p=10-3 torr, σ 10 v = m 2 s 1, we get τ 10 = s. Using the ITER preferred scenario - solid D/T pellet heated by ICRF 9 to T D=10 KeV, we obtain, < σ 10v> = m 2 s -1, p = 760 torr, u = p which gives: τ 10 = s, 12 orders of magnitude short of the Lawson Criterion, τ ~1 s. Neutral beam and solid fuel injection are incompatible with ion confinement in any magnetic system. The ITER vacuum system 10 starts with the base p= 10-7 torr and takes a gas load of 200 torr/s to drop to 10-3 torr. Next, 4,000 torr-l of DT (10 22 D 0 /T 0 ) injected raises the 18 m 3 torus chamber to 0.2 torr at the end of 4 s shot. To achieve τ E =3.8 s below E c, at T D = 10 KeV, operating vacuum p= 5x10-11 torr is required; or a base vacuum p = torr, vs. best vacuum ever achieved torr (CERN). Above E c, e.g. at T D=750 KeV, base p = torr would be required. Requirements for solid pellet injection are 10 5 times more rigorous. Ion energy confine time, τ E, is sequel of the competition between Reactions (2) and (3.a) + (3.b) Note that Eqs. (5) assumes that CT is acting alone. When ionization is turned on, confinement time should increase. We calculate τ E from the time evolution of number density of D +, n +, caused by the difference between two reaction rates, Reactions (2) and (3.a, 3.b): 1 dn + dt n + = I 10 I 01, (6) where CT reaction rate is I 10 = n 0 σ 10 v s 1 = 1 τ 10 and that of ION is I 01 = n 0 ( σ 01 v i + σ 01 v e ) = 1 τ 01. Eq. (6) has the solution: τ E = K U p σ 10 v i (U 1). (7) Here K = 1/n 0 = 5.7x Comparing Eq. (7) with (5) indicates that ionization enhances life time of D + by factor f = U. From Figs. 1.B or 2, U = 22 and f = Ionization has enhanced (U 1) D+ life time by 4.5%. Eq. (7) is valid below T C, U 2. Above threshold, U < 1, we have used Eq.(5); although it gives only the lower limit to τ E, it will qualitatively suffice for the purpose of this study. Using ITER parameters 6 T D=10 KeV, p=10-3 torr, < σ 10v> = m 2 s -1, we obtain τ E = sec neutral beam injection (7.a) Since Eq.(7) assumes Z = 1 ions only, real τ E may be an order of magnitude shorter in the flux of carbon ions, Z = 6, and of metallic fragments from the walls. 4

5 By comparison, ITER empirical scaling formula 6 with pellet injection and assuming burnout-produced absolute vacuum, confinement time should be τ E = 3.8 s. (8) The formula has 8 independent parameters; the residual gas density, n 0, is not one. It follows from Fig. 3(B) that, with neutral pellet injection in ITER, below and above E c: 1) τ E is ~10 12 times shorter than the ITER goal, Eq. (8) and ~10 11 times shorter than the thermalization time constant, τ th ~10 1 s. Maxwellian plasma cannot be formed. Injected D 0 /T 0 beam will impact the chamber walls directly. Thermonuclear DT fusion neutrons cannot be produced. 2) Fusion DT neutrons could be produced only in D 0 /T 0 beam collisions with D 0 /T 0 gas deposits on the walls. 3) Burnout is not possible. When the Eq. (7) is applied to TFTR (neutral (gas) beam injection), we obtain τ E =6 x 10-6 s, vs the claimed τ E (TFTR) = 0.26 s, which requires 10 4 larger than the true ionization cross section. Analysis of TFTR data indicates that no measurement of the physical τ G (e.g. Fig. 4) was made. Measured was the global energy confinement time, τ E (including the energy in non-thermal ions) 23, named total neutron fusion power, that measures total magnetic energy of the superposition of signal and five-component noise. 7 Eight of the 9 physical parameters were not measured but inferred (Table A.1 in Appendix). 3) Measured τ E with charged ion injection at hypercritical energies. Fig. 3.A shows predicted τ E vs. T D, from 1 KeV to 1 MeV, together with the τ E in DCX-1 4, OGRA, 8 and Auto- Colliders MIGMA III and IV. The measurement of τ E of self-colliding orbits of T D= 725 KeV is shown in Fig. 4. It is evident that τ E = 24 ± 4 s. (9) This is the longest τ E ever observed in any fusion device and in good agreement with Eq. (7). Three other independent measurements of τ E were made in the same experiment 16. Observation at 550 KeV 14 τ E = (2 ± 1.6) s agrees with the predicted 3 sec. All 4 measurements of τ E at hypercritical energy are shown in Table 1. Self-colliding orbits of 725 KeV D + + were made by injection of 1,450 KeV D 2 into center of a weak focusing magnet B=3.4 T. (Fig. 5) D 2 were dissociated by a combined action of Lorentz dissociation and selfcollisions at the center. Non-Maxwellian plasma, named migma (Greek for mixture) with zero canonical angular momentum was created for the first time 16,38. The extraordinary stability properties of created orbits have been studied by Lawson 21, Gell-Mann 26, Rosenbluth 25 and Powell 17. Long τ E was obtained by applying the technique of non-linear stabilization 20 by driving electron cloud s frequency via external DC voltage, akin to triode oscillator 20. Triple product reached was of the order of magnitude of that in TFTR 24 : 5

6 T D n D τ E = KeVm 3 s Auto-Collider Migma IV (10.a) T D n D τ E = 3 20 KeVm 3 s TFTR 24 (10.b) where T D = 725 KeV, n D = 3x10 16 m -3, τ E = 24 s for Auto Collider; using global τ E rather than real τ E in TFTR. TABLE 1. Observed τ E is above threshold experiments with charged (molecular ion) injection Auto-C0llider OGRA Auto-Collider MIGMA III DCX-1 MIGMA IV Ion Energy, T i (KeV) τ E Expected (s), Eq. (7) (8) +2.0(15) τ E Observed (s) +5. (4) ± 4 (11) It follows from Fig. 3(A) that with charged beam injection in ITER above E C, near 1 MeV, τ E is ~10 times longer than the ITER goal (Eq. (8)), and ~10 2 times longer than the thermalization time constant, τ th ~10 1 s. Plasma is formed, and DT fusion neutrons can be produced. Burnout is possible and significantly enhances the confinement, but still needed UHV pumps to provide pumping action not obtained by ionization alone. 4) Compact Aneutronic ITER fuelled with deuterium. Operating at MeV energies, where D+D fusion reactivity exceeds that of D+T by an order of magnitude (1 MeV on 1 MeV D+D is equivalent to 8 MeV beam-on-target), renders it practical to replace the radioactive tritium with deuterium, a natural, non-radioactive fuel which is extracted from the oceans. Although D+T reactions produce five times more energy than DD, the DD reaction facilitates chain fusion 17, 34 e.g. 3 He + D -> α+p + 18 MeV or 3 He + 3 He -> 2p + α + 13 MeV in which most energy is in charged particles, suitable for direct conversion into RF power 16, 17, 37. To render Compact ITER operative, eight changes are required. (i) Replace neutral injection with charged molecular injection. (ii) Increase injection energy from 100 KeV to 2 MeV, to confine atomic ions of 1 MeV. (iii) Replace tangential with central injection. (vi) Replace non-focusing magnetic field shape designed for adiabatic orbits with the strong-focusing of EXYDER design 36, 38, thus reducing the size of the elemental power unit by a large factor. (vii) Replace the toroidal reaction chamber with short cylinder moduli, 10 MW units. (viii) External UHV pump hardware to provide base vacuum of torr must be added, in view of the limits to burnout (ionization alone does not have pumping action without getter). 6

7 5) Conclusions (1) Neutral beam or pellet fuel injection are incompatible with magnetic fusion reactor at all ion energies. (2) Below E c = 200 KeV, fusion reactor is not possible even with charged fuel injection. (3) Above E c, dominance of ionization facilitates both the burnout and confinement with charged fuel injection, and makes fusion reactor viable near and above 1 MeV. (4) Dominance of DD over DT reaction reactivity at ~ 1 MeV, coupled to the advent of chain fusion, conjure up the replacement of the artificial radioactive DT fuel with the natural, abundant, radioactive waste free pure DD fuel giving rise to aneutronic fusion reactor. (5) Above E c, although burnout is operative in hyper-critical regime, UHV pumps are unavoidable. (6) Theorists had interpreted difficulties in ion confinement at KeV for the past half a century in terms of postulated exotic collective instabilities (e.g. negative mass, flute). These theories should be reviewed in the light of the existence of E c. (7) The reported τ E =0.265 s at TFTR is 10 5 times longer than what is classically feasible. Barring the discovery of a new super force in the universe, this measurement was that of global τ E, rather than that of the physical τ E, which was not instrumentally possible to measure in TFTR. Re-examination of TFTR data is called for. Genesis of the omission of the largest atomic reaction cross-section from Lawson Criterion was discussed with Lawson in the context of Generalized Criterion 27 according to which 12 terms are missing from the Criterion. Lawson drew our attention to his introduction that clearly stated that the Criterion was only a theoretical paper designed for idealized conditions to illustrate the essential features of the problem, and is neither rigorous nor complete. The assumptions made are in all cases optimistic, so that the criteria are by no means sufficient for the successful operation of a thermonuclear reactor. 3 The authors are grateful for discussion and constructive comments to the associates and friends in the American and European physics communities and particularly Freeman Dyson, Shelly Glashow and Dick Garwin. 7

8 APPENDIX Analysis of measurement of τ E in TFTR. Design of ITER is based on the accomplishments in the experiments with Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) which reported among other results - the observation of τ E = 0.26 s that is 10 5 times longer than should be expected from well-established ionization cross action data. Magnitude of TFTR discrepancy warrants a close scrutiny of the Radiation Measurement Science. Our analysis of the published data shows that the results claimed do not meet the acceptance standards of scientific proof of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. Evidence for all reported data is circumstantial, indirect, and asserted verbally with no attempt to provide quantitative or statistical proof (Table A.1). (1) We found no evidence that D+T plasma was formed. Although /s D 0 and T 0 were injected, There have not been enough D + and T + data to establish scaling 26 of a statistically significant sample. D + and T + ion temperature, claimed to be T i = 44 KeV, was not measured. It was inferred by classical beam coupling calculation from the carbon ion temperature 23 which was in final paper presented as the ion temperature 24 with no mention of C ions. D + and T + ion density, claimed to be n i+ = 7.6x10 19 m -3, was not measured but calculated from the density of α s in chamber center. Central α density of 2.2 x m -2 was not measured but inferred from the peripheral density. How were differentiated 4 He ++ from C ions (same e/m) was not addressed. (2) We found no evidence for thermonuclear ( thermal ) fusion neutrons from DT and DD; nor for thermal α particles, 3 He, tritons or protons. Proof of thermal neutrons is a double peak structure in neutron energy spectrum or in that of α, 3 He, T or p (e.g. double p peak from D+D 17 ). No peak was observed 24 in α energy spectrum which should display two double peaks, 3 He and α (Fig. A1). See e.g. Fig. A 3. (3) Fusion neutron power was not obtained from neutron measurements; it was determined by the diamagnetic response of the confining magnetic field to the plasma pressure 33 It was estimated via a model (not described) that 26% of the plasma pressure is attributed to thermonuclear neutrons from plasma-plasma fusion. In a hand drawn diagram, thermal neutrons were attributed 46% of signal plus noise 24. (4) Inadequate particle measurement apparatus. There was: 1) No RF amplitude calibrated system that could perform measurements in Fig. 4. (2) No digital particle counting; analog detectors were used throughout. 2) No coincidence circuits, single particle counting only was used; 3) No time-of flight measurements. 4) No angular resolution. 5) No energy resolution energy spectra do not exist; 6) No particle identification via e/m to distinguish p from D or α from C 6+. (7) No vacuum pressure monitoring during runs. Ultra-high vacuum pumps were not used (nor are they planned in ITER) on the assumption that burnout would maintain absolute vacuum automatically. 8

9 (5) Global energy confinement time Since measurement of real τ E, was not instrumentally possible, a surrogate quantity was construed: the global energy confinement time τ E (including the energy of nonthermal ions 23. Signal and noise were combined and the collective signal was described total fusion neutron emission. It was measured during and after the TFTR 780 ms long discharge of seven neutral 105 KeV beams totaling s -1 of D and T atoms, molecules and neutral cold ( ev) hydrogenous molecules from the wall. The walls acted as an internal beam dump, accumulating surface gas reservoir of atoms, with surface atom density 10 2 times the amount injected. Hydrogenic influx from the wall was about equal to the injected beams. The particle population was a 7 component mixture: beam, cold target atoms, molecules ions, electrons, fragments of injected pellets of beryllium and lithium, and an equal amount of metallic particles emanating from the wall under the impact of 40 MW neutral beam. Response function (equivalent to placebo) of the system that would include inertia, eddy currents and other residual effects of the tokamak was not calibrated. Signal and noise were combined into the collective signal in Fig.7. The ordinate is described variably as magnetic measurement of total stored energy 23 ; also measured neutron emission (10 18 s -1 ) 22 ; also Plasma stored energy (MJ) 24 also Total neutron fusion power. Comparison of Fig. (4) with Fig. A 2 shows that, unlike the linear energy growth during beam injection in Fig. 5 which is required to measure τe, the global energy amplitude flat topped at 60% and decayed 36% before turnoff of the 780 ms long injection pulse indicating an 80% energy sink, as opposed to the reported fusion power generation. All TFTR experimental data are consistent with real τ E < 10-6 s as should be expected from Eq. (7). 9

10 TableA.1 Physical parameters achieved in TFTR serving as basis for ITER design Parameter Beam Power Input Fusion Neutron Power Neutron Fluence Neutron Flux D/T Ion Kinetic Temperature D/T Ion Density Electron Kinetic Temperature Global Confinement Time Ion Energy Confinement Time Symbol Claimed Measured Inferred P B 39.5 MW Yes P fn 10.7 MW No From diamagnetic response of mag. Field to plasma pressure F s -1 No From #2 φ 2.2 x m -2 T i 44 KeV No No From #2 From carbon ion temperature n i m -3 No From α density T e 10 KeV Yes EHC τ G 0.27 s No From #2 τ E No 10

11 References 1. Kapitza PL - Nobel Lecture: Plasma and the controlled thermonuclear reaction"; Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB Web. 29 Sep Gilbody HB: Charge exchange in collisions between multiply charged ions and neutral hydrogen; Physics Scripta, 23, 143 (1981). 3. Lawson JD: Some criteria for a power producing thermonuclear reactor; Proc. Phys. Soc. B70, 6 (1957); 4. Barnett CF, Bell PR, Luce S, Shipley ED, Simon A: The Oak Ridge thermonuclear experiment; Proc. 2 nd UN Int. Conf. Peaceful Uses Atomic Energy, 31, 298 (1958). 5. Gilbert FC, Heckrotte W, Hester RE, Killeen J, Van Atta CM: High-energy molecular ion injection into a mirror machine; UCRL-5827 Controlled Thermonuclear Processes, UC20, TID-4500, Feb 1960 TID 4500 (15th Edition). 6. Hawryluk RJ et al: Principal physics developments evaluated in the ITER design review; Nucl. Fusion 49 (2009) Scott DW, Maglich BC: Ionization and neutralization reaction rates of deuterium in TFTR operating regime; ORNL 3260, ORNL 5256, Tables A-22 on; and (ii) Sandia report SAND (1989) Golovin I et al.: Work with the experimental thermonuclear system OGRA; USP. FIZ. NAUK 76, 685 (1961). 9. Johnson K: CERN intersecting storage rings (ISR); Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.; USA 70, 619 (1973). 10. Fisher PW, Foster CA: Pumping systems for ITER, FIRE and ARIES; Oak Ridge Nat. Lab. Report, ORNL, PWF 3/01 (2001). 11. Salameh Al et al: Experiment with stored 0.7-MeV ions: Observation of stability properties of a nonthermal plasma; Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 769 (1985). 12. Maglich B, Editor: NIM (1977); Clean Fusion Symposium Washington D. C. 13. Maglich B, Norwood J: Aneutronic energy, NIM A (1988); Inst. Advanced Study Princeton Symposium, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland Physics Publishing Division). 14. Ferrer JC et al.: Fusion products detection system in migmacell II; Ref. 12, p Menasian S et al: Advanced fuel experimentation with migmacells II and III orbit diagnostics and lifetime measurements; Ref. 12, p Maglich BC: Time average neutralized migma; a colliding beam/plasma hybrid physical state as aneutronic energy source; Ref. 13, p. 27, Fig. 16; p. 22, Fig. 11; p. 23, Fig Powell C. Nering J, Maglich BC : Wilmerding A: Studies of physics conditions for aneutronic and/or nonradioactive nuclear energy generation in 3 He-induced fission of 6 Li and 3 He fusion in a steady state migma plasma; Ref. 13, p. 44, Fig Nering J, Maglich B, Powell C: Parameters of the migma IVb experiment and physical quantities to be measured; Ref.13, p Macek R, Maglich B: The principle of self-colliding orbits and its application to π-π and µ-µ collisions; Part. Acc. 1, 121 (1970). 11

12 20. Maglich BC, Chang TF: Stabilization by electron oscillations of stored ions at densities in excess of space-charge limit; Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 299 (1993). 21. Lawson JD: Particles and beams; CERN ; pp. 13; May Strahan RJ et al: Fusion power production from TFTR plasmas fueled with deuterium and tritium; Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3526 (1994). 23. Hawryluk RJ et al: Confinement and heating of a deuterium-tritium Plasma; Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3550 (1994). 24. McGuire M et al: Review of deuterium-tritium results from the tokamak fusion test reactor; Phys. Plasmas, 2, 2176 (1995). 25. Rosenbluth, MN,Berk,HL,Vong HV: Flute interchange m=1 mode in migma, Ref. 13, p Gell-Mann M: Remark to the session on new concepts; Ref.13, p Maglich BC, Miller RA: Generalized criterion for feasibility of controlled fusion and its application to nonideal dd systems; J: Appl. Phys. 46, 2925 (1975). 28. Treglio JR: Generalized criterion for feasibility of D-T plasma fusion; J. Appl. Phys. 46, 344 (1975). 29. Chang TF: Generalized criterion for controlled fusion in D 3 He large orbit plasmas; NIM A 346, 322 (1994). 30. Scott DW, Maglich BC: Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. DPP96 Meet, Denver, available on Menasian SC: Radio frequency direct conversion of migma power; Ref 13, p Maglich B et al.: An experimental model of migmacell, part 1: Experimental set-up and lowcurrent studies of orbit geometry; ibid, 120,309 (1974). 33. Strachan JD et al for the TFTR group: Discussion of comments to Phys. Rev. Lett. By Maglich and Chang, PPL report (undated, not numbered), received June 19, The report address issues of Ref Chang TF, Maglich BC: Comments on confinement and heating of deuterium tritium plasma. And Ref. 22; Report SAFE (May 26, 1965). Subm. to Phys. Rev. Lett. May 30, Short version: Report SAFE 95 11ff (June 5, 1995). Subm. to Phys. Rev. Lett. June 6, Gilbody HB: XIX Int. conf. on the physics and electronic and atomic collisions; Whistler, AIP Press (New York) pp (1995). 36. Blewett JP: Ring magnets in Migma systems; Part. Accl. 34, 13 (1990). 37. Maglich BC, Chuang TF, Powell C, Nering J, Wilmerding A: Modern Magnetic Fusion; AIP Conference Proceedings 311 (1993), p Maglich BC, Scott DW, Hester T: T.E.A. Conference 6; Th/U233 fusion breeding above 200 KeV viable, NOT at thermonuclear ion energies; UTUBE ; May Maglich BC, Hester T, Srivinivasan M: Production of Tritium at zero cost in Blewett strongfocusiong self-collider; Nortn American particle accelerator conference, Sept. 29, Maglich BC, Menasian S.: U.S. Patent 4,788, Maglic,BC, Blewett, JP, Colleraine A., Harrison,C.: Fusion Reactions in Self-Colliding Orbits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 27, 909 (1971) 12

13 Fig. 1A. Neutralization and Ionization cross sections. Top (solid): Averaged CT cross section σ 10 (Reactions type (2)) vs. D + laboratory energy, T D, (KeV). (dash): Averaged ionization cross section σ 01 (Reactions type (3.a) and (3.b)) vs. incident electron or ion energy (KeV). Lower trace (dash-dot): Fusion reaction T(d, n)α cross section. Bottom: Ratio of averaged σ 10: σ 01. Fig. 1B. Neutralization and ionization reactivities. Top (solid): Averaged CT neutralization Reactivity (Reactions type (2)) σ v m 3 s -1 vs. electron or ion laboratory energy (KeV), shifted. Solid Trace: Averaged for deuterium neutralization Reactions type (3.1), (3.2). (Dash): Average Reactivity for deuterium ionization reactions. (Dash-dot): T(d, n)α reaction multiplied by

14 Bottom: Neutralization barrier. Ratio of averaged reactivities U, Eq. (4) vs. ion or electron kinetic energy (KeV). FORBIDDEN zone U>1 where confinement time τ E <10-6 s. Empirical shift T e=t i/2.5 based on TFTR data was applied in both figures. The reactions are: Neutralization: D D 20 ; D D 20 ; D D 10. Ionization: e - + D 20 ; e - + D 10 ; D D 20 ; D D 10. Fig. 2. Neutralization barrier. Reactivity ratio U= neutralization : ionization = U vs. D + energy (Lab). Ion confinement is forbidden in ITER between 0.40 KeV and critical energy, E C = 200 KeV but would be viable (U 1) at T D > 725 KeV where confinement τ E= 24 sec was recorded (Fig 4). Genesis of incorrect assumption that burnout is operative at all energies are two correct measurements (MSD 1950s) at 0.03 and 600 KeV made in burnout regime U<1. 14

15 Fig. 3A. Calculated vs. observed ion energy confinement time, τ E, from T D=1 to 10 3 KeV, with charged D 2 + and H 2 + beam injection. Solid line: Charge transfer only, Eq. (5). Dashed line: Charge transfer - 15

16 ionization interaction Eq. (7). Vacuum pressure p = torr. Experimental data OGRA 8, DCX 4, Auto- Collider MIGMA III 15 and MIGMA IV 11. Fig. 3B. Calculated ion energy confinement time, τ E, with neutral beam injection in ITER. Solid line: CT only, Eq. (5). Dashed line: Eq. (7). Vacuum pressure P =10-3 torr. For pellet (solid) injection, multiply axis by There was no measurement of real τ E in ITER (Appendix). Fig. 4. Measurement of ion energy confinement time τ E = 24±4 sec. Amplitudes of radial and axial RF spectra produced by 725 KeV self-colliding orbits of D +. Injection of D 2 beam of 1,450 KeV, 0.5 ma, stopped at 8 sec. Non-linear stabilization done by electron cloud oscillations through stored ions 20. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 769 (1985)]. US patent 4,788,024 B. Maglich and S. Menasian. For D+ energy spectra during decay vs. t, see Ref

17 Fig 5. Reaction chamber (Diameter = 1 m) of Auto-Collider Model Migma IV. Cross section through z=0 plane. A 1.45 MeV DC D 2 + beam, 0.5 ma, is injected into central of symmetry of a weak focusing NiTi magnet B z = 3.2 T, resulting in Lorentz and collisional dissociation into D + self-colliding orbits of 725 KeV. CEND = charge-exchange neutral detector; Ti, titanium sublimator pumps; D +, orbits of trapped ions. 17

18 Copious production of 3 He and T was observed by measuring two peaks in proton energy spectrum from d(d, T)p 25. NB: CM energy of 725KeV on 725 KeV D + beams corresponds to beam on target energy of 3.4 MeV, at which DD reactivity > DT reactivity. Fig. 6. TOP: D+D 724 Auto-Collider Migma IV Reactor chamber (1 m diameter, 0.2 m long - see Fig. 5) is sandwiched between pairs of superconducting NiTi magnets (6 T on coil, 3.2 T midplane); Vacuum Torr (base); ~10-9 (beam-in); V = 5 liter, baked 450 C for 24 hours. 18

19 BOTTOM (photomontage): Auto-Collider Injector. Van de Graaf Accelerator injects 1.45 MeV. 0.5 ma, D 2 + ions into chamber center where Lorentz plus collisional dissociation converts them into selfcolliding orbits 19,41 of 725 KeV. Migma Institute of High Energy Fusion, Princeton Figure A 1. Expected vs. observed 3 He and α particle energy spectrum. Two double peaks expected in α particle energy spectra emitted from D+T plasma, at T D = 44 KeV, if thermonuclear fusion took place: D+T n+α MeV and D+D n+ 3 He MeV. Both 3 He and α peaks should exhibit a doublestructure, separated by ~10 KeV, lower one from plasma-gas and higher from plasma-plasma fusion ; or, at least,2 cingle peaks broadened by ~ 10 KeV. The absence of any peak means no plasma was formed, as should be expected from Eq. (7) τ E~10-6 s << thermalization constant ~ 0.4 s. Observed points from Ref

20 780ms 305ms BREAKDOWN 200ms NEUTRAL BEAM INJECTION TIME, ms Figure A. 2. Measurement at TFTR of the global energy confinement time τ E = 0.20 s (including the energy of non-thermal ions ) 23 : Measured neutron emission (10 18 s 1 ) vs. neutral beam injection time, ms. Also presented as Magnetic measurement of total stored energy. 24 Energy loss starts at 200 ms, flat-tops at 305 ms, to decay 280 ms before beam cutoff (compare with Fig. 4). No specific poof for 0.20 s was presented. Lines Beam-Target; Thermonuclear, Beam-Beam are theoretical assumptions [Public Doc. PPPL-2977]. 20

21 Figure A 3 Copious 3 He and T production in Auto Collider. (A) Observed proton energy distribution from 21

22 D + D T + P + 4 MeV is a superposition of beam-on-gas and beam-on-beam (solid and open squares). (B) Difference between experimental points (closed squares) and curve as function of the colliding beam factor f which ranges from 1 (target at rest) at the beam-on-gas maximum to 4 (crossing angle 180 degrees) at the beam-on-beam maximum. Estimated luminosity: L = V[m 3 ]I 2 amp. Phys. Rev. Lett. 54,769 (1985) 22