Nuclear Fusion Reactions in Deuterated Metals

Summary

This technical publication investigates D-D nuclear fusion reactions within high-density deuterated metal lattices activated by energetic neutrons. It establishes that electron screening by conduction and shell electrons or radiation-induced plasma significantly enhances Coulomb barrier tunneling and large-angle scattering probabilities. The paper demonstrates that neutrons transfer kinetic energy to fuel deuterons far more efficiently than charged particles or photons, providing a viable pathway for initiating and sustaining fusion reactions in condensed matter.

Cover Page / Title

NASA/TP-20205001617

Nuclear Fusion Reactions in Deuterated Metals

Vladimir Pines and Marianna Pines PineSci Consulting, Avon Lake, Ohio

Arnon Chait and Bruce M. Steinetz Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Lawrence Forsley JWK Corporation, Annandale, Virginia

Robert C. Hendricks, Gustave C. Fralick, and Theresa L. Benyo Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Bayarbadrakh Baramsai, Philip B. Ugorowski, and Michael D. Becks Vantage Partners, LLC, Brook Park, Ohio

Richard E. Martin Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio

Nicholas Penney Ohio Aerospace Institute, Brook Park, Ohio

Carl E. Sandifer II Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

June 2020

NASA STI Program in Profile

NASA STI Program … in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the advancement of aeronautics and space science. The NASA Scientific and Technical Information (STI) Program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain this important role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices of the Agency Chief Information Officer. It collects, organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates NASA’s STI. The NASA STI Program provides access to the NASA Technical Report Server—Registered (NTRS Reg) and NASA Technical Report Server—Public (NTRS) thus providing one of the largest collections of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. Results are published in both non-NASA channels and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of completed research or a major significant phase of research that present the results of NASA programs and include extensive data or theoretical analysis. Includes compilations of significant scientific and technical data and information deemed to be of continuing reference value. NASA counter-part of peer-reviewed formal professional papers, but has less stringent limitations on manuscript length and extent of graphic presentations. • TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific and technical findings that are preliminary or of specialized interest, e.g., “quick-release” reports, working papers, and bibliographies that contain minimal annotation. Does not contain extensive analysis. • CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and technical findings by NASA-sponsored contractors and grantees. • CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected papers from scientific and technical conferences, symposia, seminars, or other meetings sponsored or co-sponsored by NASA. • SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, technical, or historical information from NASA programs, projects, and missions, often concerned with subjects having substantial public interest. • TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. English-language translations of foreign scientific and technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

For more information about the NASA STI program, see the following: • Access the NASA STI program home page at http://www.sti.nasa.gov • E-mail your question to [email protected] • Fax your question to the NASA STI Information Desk at 757-864-6500 • Telephone the NASA STI Information Desk at 757-864-9658 • Write to: NASA STI Program, Mail Stop 148, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681-2199

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of many people that supported this effort, including condensed matter physics guidance and technical consultation from Dr. Lou DeChiaro (U.S. Navy). We gratefully acknowledge technical input and stimulating discussions from Dr. Matthew Forsbacka (NASA HQ), Dr. Christopher Iannello (NASA KSC), Dr. Ron Litchford (NASA MSFC), and Mr. John Scott (NASA JSC), as well as Mr. Leonard Dudzinski (Planetary Sciences Division, NASA HQ). We are also grateful for Dr. James Gilland and Dr. Timothy Gray for valuable comments on the manuscript. Funding for this work was provided by NASA Headquarters Planetary Sciences Division, Science Mission Directorate.

Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identification only. Their usage does not constitute an official endorsement, either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by a committee of peers.

Available from NASA STI Program and National Technical Information Service.

Table of Contents

Contents

Summary …1 1.0 Introduction …2 2.0 Nuclear Fusion Cross Section of Bare Nucleus Ions…2 3.0 Nuclear Fusion with Electron Screening …3 3.1 Coulomb Barrier Screening by Lattice Electrons…3 3.2 Coulomb Barrier Screening by Plasma Particles …5 3.3 Coulomb Barrier Screening by Conduction Electrons in Metal Lattice…8 3.4 Screening of Reacting Hydrogen Isotope Nuclei by Atomic Shell (Bound) Electrons in Deuterated Metals…8 4.0 General Screening Case For Reacting Hydrogen Isotope Nuclei…9 5.0 Coulomb Scattering on Target Nuclei …9 5.1 Light Particles Elastic Coulomb Scattering (e–, e+)…9 5.2 Heavy Particle Elastic Coulomb Scattering (p, d, α) …11 5.3 Compton Scattering on Free Deuteron…12 6.0 Neutron Elastic Scattering on Deuteron Nuclei…14 7.0 Neutron Energy Loss in Elastic Collisions With Deuteron Nuclei…15 8.0 Summary of Results …16 References …16

Summary

Summary

Nuclear fusion reactions of D-D are examined in an environment comprised of high density cold fuel embedded in metal lattices in which a small fuel portion is activated by hot neutrons. Such an environment provides for enhanced screening of the Coulomb barrier due to conduction and shell electrons of the metal lattice, or by plasma induced by ionizing radiation (γ quanta). We show that neutrons are far more efficient than energetic charged particles, such as light particles (e−, e+) or heavy particles (p, d, α) in transferring kinetic energy to fuel nuclei (D) to initiate fusion processes. It is well-known that screening increases the probability of tunneling through the Coulomb barrier. Electron screening also significantly increases the probability of large- versus small-angle Coulomb scattering of the reacting nuclei to enable subsequent nuclear reactions via tunneling. This probability is incorporated into the astrophysical factor S(E). Aspects of screening effects to enable calculation of nuclear reaction rates are also evaluated, including Coulomb scattering and localized heating of the cold fuel, primary D-D reactions, and subsequent reactions with both the fuel and the lattice nuclei. The effect of screening for enhancement of the total nuclear reaction rate is a function of multiple parameters including fuel temperature and the relative scattering probability between the fuel and lattice metal nuclei. Screening also significantly increases the probability of interaction between hot fuel and lattice nuclei increasing the likelihood of Oppenheimer-Phillips processes opening a potential route to reaction multiplication. We demonstrate that the screened Coulomb potential of the target ion is determined by the nonlinear Vlasov potential and not by the Debye potential. In general, the effect of screening becomes important at low kinetic energy of the projectile. We examine the range of applicability of both the analytical and asymptotic expressions for the well-known electron screening lattice potential energy Ue, which is valid only for E >> Ue (E is the energy in the center of mass reference frame). We demonstrate that for E ≤ Ue, a direct calculation of Gamow factor for screened Coulomb potential is required to avoid unreasonably high values of the enhancement factor f(E) by the analytical—and more so by the asymptotic—formulas.

1.0 Introduction

1.0 Introduction

Electron screening is essential for efficient nuclear fusion reactions to occur. Screening effects on fusion reaction rates as measured in deuterated materials have been demonstrated to be important. The nuclear reaction rate includes two primary factors: the Coulomb scattering of the projectile nuclei on the target nuclei as well as nuclei tunneling through the Coulomb barrier. During elastic scattering of charged projectiles on a target nucleus, such as a deuteron, some of the energy of the projectile particle is transferred to the target nucleus, hence heating it. Depending on the projectile particle energy and the efficiency of kinetic energy transfer during the scattering event, the target deuteron may become energetic enough to enable subsequent nuclear fusion reactions via tunneling through the Coulomb barrier. Electron screening may play a significant role in this process because of hot fuel interacting with lattice nuclei in the highly screened environment, as has been demonstrated in the companion experimental work reported in Steinetz et al. (Ref. 1). In the current work we analyze the electron screening effect on Coulomb scattering and the tunneling process involving charged projectiles. We then demonstrated the superior efficiency of the kinetic energy transfer by energetic neutrons on the target deuteron nuclei resulting in subsequent nuclear reactions. Such a process is a key ingredient in achieving and sustaining nuclear reactions.

2.0 Nuclear Fusion Cross Section of Bare Nucleus Ions

2.0 Nuclear Fusion Cross Section of Bare Nucleus Ions

In the standard case of subbarrier quantum tunneling through the Coulomb barrier between positive nucleus ions, the nuclear fusion cross section of bare nucleus ions σbare(E) can be written (Ref. 2) as:

σbare(E) = [S(E)/E] exp[-G(E)] (1)

where E is the energy in the CM (center of mass) reference frame, G(E) is the Gamow factor, and S(E) is the astrophysical S-factor containing the details of nuclear interactions. It is noted that the theoretical development proceeds in Gauss units (not SI). In the nonrelativistic case, the relation between energy E in the CM frame and the kinetic energy K1∞ of the projectile nucleus ion in the laboratory (lab) frame takes the simple form:

K1∞ = (1/2) m1 v1∞^2 = (1 + m1/m2) E (2)

In the lab frame, the target nucleus ion with mass m2 is at rest (v2 = 0), and the projectile nucleus ion with mass m1 has velocity v1∞ at infinity. In the Wentzel-Kramers-Brilloin (WKB) approximation, G(E) involves the evaluation of the following integral (Ref. 2):

G(E) = (2/ħ) ∫_{r0}^{rctp} {2µ [UC(r) - E]}^(1/2) dr (3)

Here, UC(r) is the Coulomb potential energy (or the Coulomb barrier), UC(r) = Z1e Z2e / r of a projectile nucleus with charge Z1e in the Coulomb field Z2e/r of the target nucleus; µ = m1m2/(m1 + m2) is the reduced mass of projectile and target nuclei; r0 = (R1 + R2) is the classical distance of closest approach with nuclei radii R1 and R2; and rctp is the classical turning point, determined from: E = UC(rctp) → rctp = Z1e Z2e / E (4).

Evaluation of the integral gives the standard expression for the Gamow factor: GC(E) = (EG/E)^(1/2) (2/π) [ arccos((E/VC)^(1/2)) - (E/VC)^(1/2) (1 - E/VC)^(1/2) ] (5)

where VC = Z1e Z2e / r0 is the full height of the Coulomb barrier, EG = 2µc^2 (πα Z1 Z2)^2 is the Gamow energy, and α = e^2 / ħc. In the limit of (E/VC)^(1/2) << 1, the Gamow factor reduces to the Sommerfeld expression: GC,asymptotic(E) = (EG/E)^(1/2) [ 1 - (4/π) (E/VC)^(1/2) + … ] → (EG/E)^(1/2) (6)

3.0 Nuclear Fusion with Electron Screening

3.0 Nuclear Fusion with Electron Screening

3.1 Coulomb Barrier Screening by Lattice Electrons In experiments with deuteron beams and deuterated targets in insulators/semiconductors, relatively small enhancements were found for D(d, p)T due to screening by localized atomic shell electrons. In host metals, much larger enhancements occur due to dynamic screening by free-moving conduction electrons (‘lattice screening’). Screening is approximated by a uniform negative shift -Ue of the Coulomb barrier: Ue = Z1e Z2e / λsc (7) Screened potential: UC,sc(r) = (Z1e Z2e / r) exp(-r/λsc) (8) For r0 ≤ r ≤ rctp << λsc, expanding the exponential gives UC,sc(r) ≈ UC(r) - Ue (10). This approximation is justified for E >> Ue (13). For E ≤ Ue, direct numerical evaluation of G(E) is required.

The enhancement factor is defined as: f(E) = σexp(E) / σbare(E) (15) Under the lattice potential approximation: fUe(E) = [E / (E + Ue)] exp[GC(E) - GC(E + Ue)] (17) Asymptotic formula: fUe,asymptotic(E) = [E / (E + Ue)] exp[ (Ue / 2E) (EG/E)^(1/2) ] (18) Direct numerical evaluation: Gdirect(E) = (2/ħ) ∫_{r0}^{r*ctp} {2µ [UC,sc(r) - E]}^(1/2) dr (19) fdirect(E) = exp[GC(E) - Gdirect(E)] (21)

Table I comparison for ErD3 (Ue = 347 eV):

• E = (1/2)Ue: fdirect = 1.09×10^12, fUe = 2.36×10^13, fUe,asymptotic = 1.9×10^32
• E = Ue: fdirect = 9.89×10^5, fUe = 3.09×10^6, fUe,asymptotic = 1.96×10^11
• E = 2Ue: fdirect = 539, fUe = 676, fUe,asymptotic = 8286
• E = 3Ue: fdirect = 45.7, fUe = 46.4, fUe,asymptotic = 127

3.2 Coulomb Barrier Screening by Plasma Particles In dense non-equilibrium two-temperature plasma channels produced by ionizing radiation, hot electrons (Te >> Ti) cannot form bound states. The Debye length is determined by ion Debye length λDi: λD ≈ λDi = [kTi / (4π ni0 e^2)]^(1/2). For ErD3 at room temperature, λD = 4.15×10^-10 cm, yielding Ue = 347 eV.

3.3 Coulomb Barrier Screening by Conduction Electrons in Metal Lattice Due to quantum degeneracy, conduction electrons form a Fermi gas. In a classical one-component model, screening length λDe,c gives Ue = 347 eV for ErD3.

3.4 Screening by Atomic Shell Electrons Screening by bound shell electrons is modeled using the Thomas-Fermi model with screening length λTF = 1.4 a0 / Z^(1/3).

4.0 General Screening Case For Reacting Hydrogen Isotope Nuclei

4.0 General Screening Case For Reacting Hydrogen Isotope Nuclei

When combining screening mechanisms (shell electrons + conduction electrons, or shell electrons + plasma electrons), the total screening potential is Ue,sc = e^2 / λsc (57), where: 1/λsc^2 = 1/λTF^2 + 1/λDe,c^2 or 1/λsc^2 = 1/λTF^2 + 1/λD^2 (58).

5.0 Coulomb Scattering on Target Nuclei

5.0 Coulomb Scattering on Target Nuclei

5.1 Light Particles Elastic Coulomb Scattering (e–, e+) Relativistic electron scattering differential cross section is given by Mott-like scattering with atomic screening parameter θmin = ħ / (pe λTF). For 2 MeV electrons on deuteron targets, the total cross section σe-d is 38.41 kb, but the mean deuteron recoil energy transferred per collision is only Ed = 24.75 meV.

5.2 Heavy Particle Elastic Coulomb Scattering (p, d, α) For heavy charged particles (protons, deuterons, alphas), Rutherford-type scattering dominates. Total cross sections are large (e.g., σp-D = 5.76 Mb for 3 MeV protons, σd-D = 11.51 Mb for 3 MeV deuterons, σα-D = 91.48 Mb for 3 MeV alphas), but mean recoil energies remain very small (41.4 meV to 44 meV) because forward small-angle scattering heavily dominates. Conduction electron screening significantly increases the probability of large-angle back-scattering.

5.3 Compton Scattering on Free Deuteron Calculated using the Klein-Nishina cross section. For 2 MeV gamma photons, the Compton cross section on deuterons is σC = 49.43 nb, transferring a mean recoil energy of ED = 2.13 keV. Photons transfer kinetic energy much more efficiently per collision than charged particles.

6.0 Neutron Elastic Scattering on Deuteron Nuclei

6.0 Neutron Elastic Scattering on Deuteron Nuclei

Below the deuteron disintegration threshold (Kn_th = 3.4 MeV), neutron scattering on deuterons is purely elastic and isotropic in the CM frame (σsc(θCM) = σsc / 4π). Kinematic analysis shows that the energy distribution of scattered neutrons is uniformly distributed over the interval [αn Kn, Kn], where αn = [(md - mn)/(md + mn)]^2.

7.0 Neutron Energy Loss in Elastic Collisions With Deuteron Nuclei

7.0 Neutron Energy Loss in Elastic Collisions With Deuteron Nuclei

The average kinetic energy transferred from a neutron to a deuteron in an elastic collision is: K’d = (1/2)(1 - αn) Kn = [2 mn md / (mn + md)^2] Kn = (4/9) Kn (121) For 2.45 MeV neutrons (from D-D fusion), the total cross section is σsc ≈ 3 b, and the mean deuteron recoil energy is 1.09 MeV.

Table II Summary (Mean Deuteron Recoil Energies):

• Light particles (e-, e+) Ee = 2 MeV: σ = 38.41 kb, Recoil Energy = 24.75 meV
• Heavy particles Ep = 3 MeV: σ = 5.76 Mb, Recoil Energy = 41.4 meV
• Heavy particles Ed = 3 MeV: σ = 11.51 Mb, Recoil Energy = 42.7 meV
• Heavy particles Eα = 3 MeV: σ = 91.48 Mb, Recoil Energy = 44 meV
• Compton γ Eγ = 2 MeV: σ = 49.43 nb, Recoil Energy = 2.13 keV
• Neutron n En = 2.45 MeV: σ = 3 b, Recoil Energy = 1.09 MeV

Thus, energetic neutrons are orders of magnitude more effective in transferring kinetic energy to fuel nuclei to initiate fusion reactions.

8.0 Summary of Results and References

8.0 Summary of Results

This study indicates the crucial role of electron screening on the overall efficiency of nuclear fusion events between charged particles. Neutrons are far more efficient than energetic charged particles in transferring kinetic energy to initiate fusion. Screening increases tunneling probability and large-angle Coulomb scattering in metal lattices, opening routes to Oppenheimer-Phillips stripping reactions and reaction multiplication. For low projectile energies (E ≤ Ue), direct calculation of the Gamow factor for the screened potential is required.

References (Selected):

1. Steinetz, B.M., et al., Phys. Rev. C, vol. 101, 044640, 2020.
2. Martin, B.R., Nuclear and Particle Physics, John Wiley, 2009.
3. Rolfs, C.; Rodney, W., Cauldrons in Cosmos, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1988.
4. Strieder, F., et al., Naturwissenschaften, vol. 88, pp. 461–467, 2001.
5. Bonomo, C., et al., Nucl. Phys. A, vol. 719, 2003.
6. Greife, U., et al., Z. Phys. A, vol. 351, 1995.
7. Raiola, F., et al., Eur. Phys. J. A, vol. 13, pp. 377–382, 2002.
8. Raiola, F., et al., Phys. Lett. B, vol. 547, pp. 193–199, 2002.
9. Czerski, K., et al., Eur. Phys. J. A, vol. 27, pp. 83–88, 2006.
10. Salpeter, E.E., Austr. J. Phys., vol. 7, p. 373, 1954.
11. Assenbaum, H.J.; Langanke, K.; Rolfs, C., Z. Phys. A, vol. 327, pp. 461–468, 1987.
12. Fukai, Y., The Metal-Hydrogen System, Springer, 2005.
13. Landau, L.D.; Lifshitz, E.M., Statistical Physics, Pergamon, 1980.
14. Jackson, J.D., Classical Electrodynamics, John Wiley, 1999.
15. Shukla, P.K., Phys. Plasmas, vol. 8, p. 1791, 2001.
16. Pines, V.; Zlatkowski, M.; Chait, A., Adv. Space Res., vol. 46, pp. 942–959, 2010.
17. Kittel, C., Introduction to Solid State Physics, John Wiley, 2004.
18. Kasagi, J., Proc. 14th ICCNS, vol. 1, p. 318, 2008.
19. Sigmund, P., Particle Penetration and Radiation Effects, Springer, 2007.
20. Dapor, M., Electron-Beam Interactions With Solids, Springer, 2003.
21. Lamarsh, J.R., Introduction to Nuclear Reactor Theory, ANS, 2002.