banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Effects of nonequilibrium particle distributions in deuterium-tritium burning
Rent this article for


Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Typical burn profile for plasma with deuterium-tritium as the primary reaction fuel. Here represents the mean energy of the particle distributions, and what is plotted on the ordinate is 2/3 this value. If the particles were in equilibrium, this would correspond to the temperature of the particles. The deuterium, tritium, electron, and photon temperatures (not shown in this figure) were initially held at with equimolar amounts of deuterium and tritium corresponding to .

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Effective temperature profile of photon distribution as a function of time.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Number densities of the various particle species as a function of time.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Reaction rates for various fusion processes as a function of time.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Deuteron and triton energy distributions at various times during the burn calculation. Panel (a) shows distributions at , (b) , (c) , and (d) . For comparison panel (a) also shows a sample Maxwellian distribution with temperature and normalized to particles per .

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Percentage of deterium/tritium not in equilibrium as a function of time.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Excess kurtosis of deuterium and triton distributions as defined in Eq. (18).

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Comparison of mean energies between full Fokker–Planck run and run where Maxwellian distributions are used after every timestep. Panel (a) shows comparison for deuteron mean energies, (b) shows comparison for triton mean energies. Note that for runs using Maxwellian distributions, the ordinate is equivalent to temperature.

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

Relative difference between Fokker–Planck DT fusion rates and thermal DT fusion rates.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

Mean energies of tritons and deuterons around their peak values.

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

Fusion products’ energy distributions at various times. Panel (a) shows distributions at , (b) , (c) , and (d) .

Image of FIG. 12.
FIG. 12.

Background temperatures derived from fitting Maxwell–Boltzmann distributions at low energies using distributions shown in Fig. 11 (see text).

Image of FIG. 13.
FIG. 13.

Percentage of fusion products not in equilibrium (a) and excess kurtosis of fusion products (b) as a function of time.

Image of FIG. 14.
FIG. 14.

Results comparing full Fokker–Planck runs shown with solid lines and Fokker–Planck runs with Planckian photon distributions enforced after every timestep shown with dashed lines. Panel (a) shows difference between photon effective temperatures, (b) shows difference in electron temperatures, (c) shows difference in deuteron temperatures, and (d) shows difference in photon number densities.

Image of FIG. 15.
FIG. 15.

Burn profiles for runs with different initial conditions. Panels [(a)–(c)] had initial concentrations of DT fuel, whereas [(d)–(f)] had . Panels [(a) and (d)] had all species initially held at , [(b) and (e)] held at , and [(c) and (f)] held at .

Image of FIG. 16.
FIG. 16.

Effect of xenon dopant on electron, deuteron, photon, and xenon temperatures. Line has no dopant, has dopant at the amount of initial deuterium, , and .


Generic image for table
Table I.

Fusion reactions included in study.


Article metrics loading...


Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Effects of nonequilibrium particle distributions in deuterium-tritium burning