On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 2:29 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: The problem with this approach is lack of ROI. To start with only a > fraction of > the incident x-rays are going to kick an electron out of a lower orbital. > When > it does happen, only a fraction of the time would this produce an > energetic D > nucleus. Then only a fraction of those energetic D nuclei would actually > undergo > fusion. > > All in all, I fear that all those fractions multiplied together are going > to > result in a COP << 1. >
This is my way of learning nuclear physics on the sly -- I say things, and then Robin sets the record straight. ;) There was one detail I left out, because I didn't understand it -- Ron referred to the "classical turning point." It almost sounded like he envisioned two (and not just one) dueterons being pulled in together (or pushed out, together?) and then meeting at a specific location; i.e., the movement of the dueterons seemed to be directed rather than thermal. If true, perhaps this would take care of some of the loss of COP through fractions being multiplied together. I don't have a sophisticated enough understanding of the forces involved to see how this is supposed to work; perhaps it is either of: (1) A higher-shell electron moves in to fill the vacancy, pulling in a deuteron as it does, until it reaches the "classical turning point" -- maybe the point at which coulomb repulsion stops the deuteron from going any further; presumably it will not be moving for the brief moment that it is at that point, but perhaps Ron Maimon only intends that the fusion event occur before or after this point. (2) The original, ejected electron pulls the deuteron outwards. This would seem to have the disadvantage of not resulting in an especially directed focusing of deuterons at one another. I think Ron Maimon was proposing that there will have been two inner shell electrons that will have been ejected, but I'm not sure. Eric
