Hypervelocity Macroscopic Particle Impact Fusion with DT Methane

Y.A. Lei, J. Liu, Z.X. Wang

School of Physics and State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology,
Beijing University, Beijing, 100871 China

Hypervelocity impact (HVI) is a very important workbench in high energy density (HED) physics
studies. In this paper, we will discuss the physics of the impact of a macroscopic particle (macron)
at the speed of up to (∼1000 km/s) to an immobile target, and the differences to other HED drives.
As HVIs can create ultra high energy density, we believe with a proper design, they can be very
efficient drives to inertial confinement fusion energy (IFE). We will propose a fusion scheme of this
concept, investigate the physics involved in detail, and present the preliminary simulation results.
These investigations show the scheme is very promising.

PACS numbers: 28.52.Av, 28.52.Cx, 89.30.Jj, 29.20.Ej

I. INTRODUCTION over 3 km/s, 10 km/s at most, and the bullet is usu-

Hypervelocity impact (HVI) of macroscopic particles
(macron) [1, 2] is a very useful tool in high energy den-
sity (HED) studies. It is one of the very few choices that
can create the high energy density (or equivalently, the
pressure) desired. Comparing with other HED drives like
high average power laser (HAPL) [3], Z-pinch, high en-
ergy particle beams [4, 5], HVI has some unique features
desirable. The most significant one is that HVI trans-
forms most of the bullet’s kinetic energy into material
shock wave, producing high pressure and temperature of
matter. While laser, X-ray, high energy electron or ion
beams, all transfer their energy primarily to electrons,
which mostly becomes radiation. In these drives, the nu-
clei are only affected by the secondary effects such as
collective forces, wave-particle processes, etc., and only
get a small share of the injected energy. This is even more
unpleasant in inertial confinement fusion (ICF) scenarios,
because the amount of injected energy is limited and pre-
cious. Another favorable feature is that HVI bullets can
have higher energy concentration. Lasers have low energy
conversion efficiency and low net energy. High-power X-
rays are not easily controllable. High energy beams tends
to deposit their energy in a large region, i.e., high energy
(GeV) electrons or ions travel too far in materials. They
also deposit energy mostly to cold electrons (thus radia-
tion), unnecessarily excite the nuclei (thus high energy γ
rays and unwanted nuclear reactions), or in other words,
their heating is isochoric, they create a highly radiative
state, not the high matter temperature and pressure we
want most. The specific energy deposition Es energetic
beams is typically a few kJ/g, or ∼ 1010 J/m3 , a little
short to the HED definition ∼ 1011 J/m3 [6, 7]. On the
other hand, HVI of macrons has low particle energy, but
much higher density (1010 ∼ 1012 times higher than par-
ticle beams), a 10 km/s macron has an energy density of
about ∼ 1011 J/m3 . Macron HVI can create a localized
shock wave and HED state, with matter pressure up to
10 Mbar or higher.
The common definition of hypervelocity is the speed
ally a few grams. This is achievable by conventional
methods like two-stage light gas guns, high explosives,
linear induction motors, rail guns, etc. The pressure in
such experiments can reach a few Mbar. In HED stud-
ies, they are used in shock wave and equation of state
(EOS) researches. However, what we will discuss here
is the impact of a macron at the speed of up to ∼ 1000
km/s. As the energy density is four to five orders higher
than conventional hypervelocity macron, this will signif-
icantly extend the laboratorial scope of HED studies.
Higher energy states at the pressure of up to 1 Gbar
and the temperature up to a few keV will be available.
The energy density of such a macron can reach ∼ 1015
J/m3 . New phenomenons like multiple phases and mul-
tiple shock waves may occur. New concept like impact
fusion energy could rise from the availability of larger
macrons at these speeds.
II. AVAILABILITY OF MACRON
HYPERVELOCITY
The only practical method of accelerating a macron to
the speed ∼ 1000 km/s is electrostatic acceleration, in-
cluding its synchronized multiple stage version. In micro
particle hypervelocity studies [8, 9], dust particles with
the mass of 10−16 ∼ 10−10 gram are accelerated to up
to 100 km/s by 2 MV Van de Graaff accelerators, hitting
metal targets to study the ionization properties. Small as
the particle is, these experiments can still help in some
HED studies. However, most HED researches such as
EOS, radiation, shock wave, phase transition, need a de-
cent size of the macron. Besides, dust particles are hard
to control or to reach high speed, because the varying
charge-mass ratio between particles and the low voltage
of Van de Graaff accelerator.
However, if we are accelerating a single macron, with
fixed size and charge-mass ratio, a linear synchrotron can
apply, and we can have a much higher electrical field
strength and equivalent total voltage.
 For a spherical macron of mass M , charge Q, radius r,
density ρ, placed in an external electric field E, its surface
electric field is E0 = Q/r2 (Gaussian unit), and M =
4πρr3 /3. The maximum field strength for a negatively
charged macron is well above 109 V/m, and a positive
charged 1010 V/m [10]. The maximum charge-mass ratio
is
Qmax 3Emax
= , (1)
M 4πρr
from which we can see Q/M is inversely proportional to
the macron radius. Assuming the radius of a positively
charged aluminum macron is 0.1 millimeter, its charge-
mass ratio is
Qmax 1.11 × 10−8 C e updated with modern computational physics techniques.
≈ ≈ 1.0 × 10−8 , (2)
M 1.13 × 10−5 g mp
with e being the electron charge and mp the proton mass.
The kinetic energy at the speed of 1000 km/s is ap-
proximately 5 keV per nucleon. The acceleration needs
a total voltage of
5 keV
V = = 5 × 1011 volts. (3)
(Qmax /M )
Modern linear elementary particle accelerators can pro-
vide a maximum electric field strength of 60-70 MV/m, so
the total length of the accelerator is about 8 kilometers.
Considering the size of modern accelerators like Interna-
tional Linear Accelerator (ILC), Large Hadron Collider
(LHC), this is not a problem. More ambitious accelera-
tor plans suggest 150 MV/m field strength, as in Com-
pact Linear Collider (CLIC). In this case the accelerator
length can be reduced to less than 4 kilometers. Consid-
ering no magnets is necessary, thus no costly super con-
ducting facilities, and the low speed of the macron means
low accelerating klystron frequency, it is very likely such
an accelerator is very economical.
III. APPLICATION TO IMPACT FUSION
ENERGY
Macron HVI is highly efficient in transferring the ki-
netic energy into ion temperature, because the mecha-
nism is shock wave and thermalization. Little energy is
wasted in heating the electrons and causes unwanted ra-
diation. Shock waves can also create a local high-density
high-temperature area, which is favored in inertial con-
finement fusion (ICF).
ICF is all about high energy density of DT ions, and
a certain amount of total input energy. Macron HVI can
meet these requirements so long as the size and the speed
of the macron reaches a certain criterion. This is the im-
pact fusion concept pioneered by Prof. Harrison [11] and
Prof. Winterberg [12] in 1964, and explored by other re-
searchers [13, 14]. In 1979, Los Alamos National Labora-
tory (LLNL) hosted the first international impact fusion
workshop. Unfortunately, it was also the last. Shortly
after this workshop, LANL evaluated the concept [15],
and concluded that the concept is not practical, because
people believe the macron should be about a gram, and
the ignition energy should be 10 ∼ 50 MJ depending on
the compression is three dimensional or one. There is no
way to accelerate a gram size particle to that energy.
We noticed some situation changes in the past 28
years, such as, 1), particle accelerators work at high field
strength; we know better about fusion energy deposi-
tion [16, 17], which is much favorable than people believe
that time [18]; the conclusive simulation [19] should be
We also noticed the fusion mechanism adopted in [15, 19]
is global adiabatic compression, which is doubtful be-
cause the speed of the incoming macron exceeds all waves
in liquid or solid. The compression and the heating must
be restrained near the shock front.
Assuming the speed of the macron is about 1000 km/s,
the kinetic energy depends on its mass. As the mass, or
the size, of the macron determines the charge-mass ratio,
hence the length of the accelerator, it is very important
that it should be as small as possible. Impact fusion
concept was rejected because of the very fact that the
accelerator length would exceed 10000 km with the size
and the energy above, and the accelerator technology at
that time.
Impact fusion as an inertial confinement fusion energy
(IFE) concept, has an outstanding advantage over other
concepts. It is “standing-off”, i.e., there’s no or few close
contact components near the fusion spot. This is vital in
IFE power plant design, because each shot typically re-
leases 1 GJ or more energy, which approximated equals
to that of one ton high explosives, this destroys every-
thing nearby. Hohlraum stands, optical lenses, electrical
cables in other IFE concepts will all be totally destroyed
or severely damaged. This is one of the reasons peo-
ple bet on magnetic confinement fusion energy (MFE)
schemes. Impact fusion is free of this problem. Other
advantages like propagating thermal nuclear burn, no
pre-compression, vast and easy tailored energy output,
enveloping, close high density energy or neutron harvest-
ing are desirable feature of fusion energy, but unavailable
in other concepts.
If the acceleration problem is solved, impact fusion can
be more optimistic than MFEs.
IV. NEW IMPACT FUSION SCHEME
Our idea is similar to the impact fast ignition con-
cept [20, 21], but with no pre-compression, because pre-
compression complicates the reactor, and is usually a big
trouble to standing-off.
The fusion target we choose is the most condensed form
of crystal DT methane (CD2 T2 ), with a molar density
of 0.037 mol/cm−3 , corresponding to a DT density of
0.89 × 1023 /cm−3 , more than twice than that of liquid
DT (0.035 mol/cm−3 , or 0.42×1023 /cm−3 ). Except high
DT concentration, DT methane provides four times more
stopping to fusion produced alpha particles than pure
DT, so the energy carried by alpha particle is restrained
to a much smaller region, and produces a much higher
local temperature. Carbon also brings more moment of
inertia, enhances the confinement of hot DT ions.
The introducing of carbon has some problems too. The
major concern is the bremsstrahlung radiation, which is
25 times high as in pure DT plasma at the same tem-
perature. In the early ignition stage, while tempera-
ture is typically around 10 keV, bremsstrahlung radia-
tion power is a few times higher than fusion alpha par-
ticle power (one fifth of total fusion power). However,
this is not as bad as it looks. In our case, electron tem-
perature is always lower than ion’s, because of radiation.
Bremsstrahlung spectrum concentrates on low frequency
(temperature) region. Our fusion target is bulky and
dense, and we can have a heavy metal envelop to hold
the target. The radiation can not escape. As the radi-
ation temperature rises, the bremsstrahlung power goes
down. So we can safely assume, at least in the ignition
and early burning stage, when the temperature of the
electrons is not too high (< 5 keV), the radiation doesn’t
consume too much energy. In our simulation, we assume
in the early stages, radiation energy is the same as elec-
tron’s. Another concern is that the increased number of
electrons may share more alpha particle energy. This is
not that bad either, because carbon ion has roughly 10
times more stopping than DT ions, and low energy car-
bon ion thermalizes immediately with DT ions only. The
fraction of alpha particle energy depositing to ions in DT
methane plasma is only a little smaller than that in pure
DT plasma. Of course, the ionization of carbon atom
also takes some energy, but not much, 1 keV per atom.
The bullet is a millimeter size diamond ball (cubic or
cylinder in simulation). Diamond has high strength and
relatively low mass density, both important in charging
and acceleration. Comparing with the metal bullets in
earlier schemes, carbon’s relatively low Z number can
reduce the extra ionization and bremsstrahlung loss. A
1000 km/s diamond bullet is in fact an extremely high
intensity and low energy light ion beam, each ion has
a kinetic energy of 62 keV. Comparing with heavy ion
beams, particle energy is much lower (keV vs GeV), but
beam density is much higher (1023 cm−3 vs 1010 ∼ 1014
cm−3 ).
As there is now pre-compression, and the target is not
necessarily to be very precisely located, the target can
be tossed up from the bottom of the reaction chamber to
ensure standing-off.
V. FUSION ENERGY DEPOSITION
The modern understanding of energy deposition in ICF
are quite different from 1970’s, when only small angle
Coulomb scattering is considered [18, 22]. Almost all
alpha particle energy goes to electrons. Li and Petrasso
[16] counted in the large angle Coulomb scattering and
the collective effects. They found a dramatic raise of ion
share in alpha energy deposition.
Recently, Ghosh and Menon [17] discussed the contri-
bution of neutron and nuclear scattering. They found
large fraction of fusion produced charged particle and
neutron energy stays in the small ICF pellets. We fol-
lowed the same procedure, only our target is much larger
and less dense.
Our concern in this paper is whether a continuous
burning can be initiated, so only the ignition, electron
heating, and early stage of burning is involved. In this
time period, the electron temperature is lower than 10
keV, and ion’s lower than 20 keV. Thus the dominant
fusion reaction is:
D21 + T31 → He42 (3.5 MeV) + n10 (14.1 MeV) (4)
Coulomb scattering and collective effects of alpha en-
ergy deposition is calculated based on Li and Petrasso’s
formulae [16].
Ghosh and Menon found, up to 58 percent of neutron
energy can deposits to ions, mainly because of the high
deuterium density (1028 cm−3 ) they used. We are not
that lucky. High energy neutrons can only pass their en-
ergy efficiently to DT ions because of the mass ratio. Un-
fortunately, according to neutron scattering theory, the
efficiency is too high. D, T ions can get an average en-
ergy of 7 MeV, 6 MeV at each collision, which can travel
more than ten times further than alpha particles. These
energy mostly goes to electrons, making little contribu-
tion to ion heating. Neutron energy deposition is ignored
in our simulation, though it does help in a larger region
and longer period.
Ghosh and Menon also found, nuclear scattering can
provide as much as one third to one half of the total
stopping of a 3.5 MeV deuterium ion in 0.1 MeV and 1026
cm−3 deuterium plasma. As we do not have the detailed
cross section data at correspondent low energy range, we
compared D-D [23] scattering with He-D [24], He-T [25]
and He-C [26] ones at typical experimental energy and
scattering angle. It appears that alpha particle related
cross sections are either close to D-D’s, or larger, see
Table 1. To be conservative, in our simulation we assume
the nuclear scattering stopping of 3.5 MeV alpha particle
is 50% of its ion Coulomb stopping.
TABLE I: Elastic scattering differential cross sections of D-D,
He-D, He-T, He-C at 35 degree. ∗ marked are interpolated.
dσ/dΩ is the differential cross section, in unit of millibarn per
steradian.

Scattering Energy (MeV) dσ/dΩ (mb/sr)

D-D 3.50 482∗
He-D 2.87 428
He-T 4.16 638
He-C 3.99 2340∗

FIG. 1: DT fusion alpha particle stopping range in uncom-

pressed DT methane plasma. Y-axis is alpha particles travel
length, in unit of centimeter. Abscissa is the temperature of
the plasma, in unit of keV. Dashed line is the alpha particle
stopping range by electrons only, solid line includes ions, and
dotted line pluses nuclear scattering.

VI. SIMULATION RESULTS

The impact process looks like a shock wave, but it is

basically a particle process. As it is impossible so simu-
late in particle scale, our code is a hybrid code of finite
volume fluid, plus artificial particle diffusion and energy
deposition.
Because of the limitations of the algorithm and the
nature of fusion process, our simulation is only valid in
the early stages, when the alpha particle travel length is
not too long, and the radiation leaking not too bad. As
our goal is to find an approximate ignition energy, if we
see the temperatures of both electrons and ions rise to
certain number, we won’t worry if it could continue, be-
cause the propagating burning is a exponentially growing
process. However, we can not give the total energy yield
yet.
We simulated a cylindric diamond bullet of 1 mm diam-
eter and 1 mm long, shotting into DT methane target at
the speed of 800 km/s and 830 km/s, which corresponds
to a quench-out and a successful ignition, respectively.
The results are shown in Figure 2.
FIG. 2: Simulation details of a quench out and successful
ignition. A 1 mm diameter and 1 mm long cylindric diamond
bullet shotting into a crystal DT methane target, at speed of
800 km/s and 830 km/s, respectively. The abscissa is time, in
unit of nanosecond. (a) is fusion power, in unit of peta watt.
(b) is the highest DT ion density, in unit of 1024 particles per
cubic centimeter. The ignited case has a lower ion density,
because of its higher temperature. (c) is the alpha energy
deposition to ions and electrons, in unit of peta watt. We can
see electrons consume most of the energy. (d) is the highest
temperatures of ions and electrons, in unit of keV. Though
electrons consume much more energy in the early stage, their
temperature is significantly lower than ions.
 From these figures, we can see, though 80% of the fu-
sion energy is wasted as almost transparent high energy
neutrons, and most of the rest goes to electron and ra-
diation, what remains is still enough to warm up the
neighboring ions to fusion temperature, if the incoming
bullet is fast enough. The high momentum of the bullet
is essential in compressing the target to high densities.
The 830 km/s bullet has roughly 0.95 MJ kinetic energy.
If the target is liquid DT, instead of crystal DT methane,
about half more ignition energy is needed.
VII. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
Hypervelocity macroscopic particle impact can open a
door to a unexplored field of high energy density physics,
new states of matter may occur, new understandings
about HED matter may come out of direct observation,
and impact ignited thermal nuclear propagating burn
may come true.
We discussed the physics of Diamond-DT methane im-
pact fusion (DMIF) scheme. Simulation shows the igni-
tion energy is about 1 MJ, which is of the same order of
other ICF’s. This is only one fiftieth of previously be-
lieved value in 1980. Take the example of the ignition
case in Section VI, the length of the accelerator is about
75 kilometer, if the accelerator field strength is 30 MV/m
as in ILC. There is still quite some room for improvement,
because the field strength the bullet can tolerate is still
a few hundred times away (∼ 10 GV/m).
With all the inborn advantages, DMIF can be a
promising inertial fusion energy candidate.
VIII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work is supported by National Natural Science
Foundation of China 10675007, 10778613, 973 program
2008CB717803, and National Fund for Fostering Talents
of Basic Science (NFFTBS) J0630311.
[1] A. J. Stilp, Int. J. Impact Engng. 5 613-621 (1987)
[2] S. HIERMAIER, et al., Int. J. Impact Engng., 20, 363-
374 (1997)
[3] A. N. Pirri, Phys. of Fluids 20, 221 (1977)
[4] D. H. H. Hoffmann et al., Phys. of Plasmas 9, 3651 (2002)
[5] V. E. Fortov, D. H. H. Hoffmann, B. Yu Sharkov, Phys.-
Usp. 51 109-131 (2008)
[6] D. H. H. Hoffmann et al., Laser and Particle Beams 23
47-53 (2005)
[7] N. A. Tahir et al, , Nucl. Inst. Meth. 544 16-26 (2005)
[8] J. F. Friichtenicht, Rev. Sci. Inst. 33, 209 (1961)
[9] M. J. Burchell, M. J. Cole, J. A. M. McDonnell, J. C. Zar-
necki, Meas. Sci. Technol, 10, 41 (1999).
[10] E. W. Müller, Phys. Rev. 102, 618 (1956).
[11] E. R. Harrison, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 535 (1963).
[12] F. Winterberg, Z. Naturforsch. 19, 232 (1964).
[13] C. Maisonnier, 11 Nuovo Cimento 42b, 332 (1966).
[14] J. P. Barber, The Australian National University Re-
search School of Physical Sciences, Report EP-TR12,
March 1972.
[15] F. L. Ribe, A. T. Peaslee, Jr., LA-UR-80-2612 (1980).
[16] C-K Li and R. D. Petrasso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3059
(1993).
[17] K. Ghosh and S. V. G. Menon, Nucl. Fusion 47 1176
(2007).
[18] G. S. Fraley, E. J. Linnebur, R. J. Mason, and R. L.
Morse, Phys. Fluids, 17, 474 (1974).
[19] T. R. Jarboe, Proc. Impact Fusion Workshop, Los
Alamos, 429, 1979.
[20] F. Winterberg, AIP Conf. Proc. 406, 198-207 (1997).
[21] M. Murakami and H. Nagatomo, Nucl. Inst. Meth. A 544
67 (2005).
[22] T. A. Mehlhorn, J. Appl. Phys. 52, 6522 (1981).
[23] J. M. Blair, G. Freier, E. E. Lampi, W. Sleator, J. H.
Williams, Phys. Rev. 74, 1594 (1948).
[24] A. J. Kellock, J. E. E. Baglin, Nucl. Inst. Meth. B, 79,
493 (1993).
[25] M. Ivanovich, P. G. Young, G. G. Ohlsen, Nucl. Phys. A,
110, 441 (1968).
[26] T. P. Marvin, P. P. Singh, Nucl. Phys. A, 180, 282
(1972).