Comment on “Avalanche proton-boron fusion based on elastic nuclear

collisions” [Phys. Plasmas 23, 050704 (2016)]

Mikhail L. Shmatov

Citation: Physics of Plasmas 23, 094703 (2016); doi: 10.1063/1.4963006

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4963006
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/php/23/9
Published by the American Institute of Physics

Articles you may be interested in

Avalanche proton-boron fusion based on elastic nuclear collisions
Physics of Plasmas 23, 050704050704 (2016); 10.1063/1.4950824

Response to “Comment on ‘Avalanche proton-boron fusion based on elastic nuclear collisions’” [Phys. Plasmas
23, 094703 (2016)]
Physics of Plasmas 23, 094704094704 (2016); 10.1063/1.4963007
 PHYSICS OF PLASMAS 23, 094703 (2016)
Comment on “Avalanche proton-boron fusion based on elastic nuclear
collisions” [Phys. Plasmas 23, 050704 (2016)]
Mikhail L. Shmatova)
Ioffe Institute, 194021 St. Petersburg, Russia
(Received 28 July 2016; accepted 5 September 2016; published online 21 September 2016)
It is shown that collisions of alpha particles with protons could not result in the physically
important manifestation of avalanche proton-boron fusion in experiments at Prague Asterix Laser
System. Published by AIP Publishing. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4963006]
Recently, Eliezer et al.1 have suggested that collisions
of alpha particles, generated by reaction
p þ11 B ! 3a þ 8:9 MeV; (1)
with initially resting protons and subsequent participation of
these protons in reaction (1) result in an avalanche process.
This has been done when trying to explain rather high yield
of alpha particles in experiments on irradiation of boron-
hydrogen-silicon targets at PALS (Prague Asterix Laser
System).1–3 As shown below, in these experiments, the prob-
ability pef f
ap of collision of alpha particle with proton with
acceleration of the proton to the kinetic energies, corre-
sponding to relatively large cross section rð1Þ for reaction
(1), was not sufficient for the physically important manifesta-
tion of the avalanche process discussed by Eliezer et al.1
Let us consider scattering of alpha particle with kinetic
energy ea on resting proton in situations when the minimum
value emin
p0 of kinetic energy ep0 , acquired by the proton ini-
tially, equals 280 keV. The choice of emin
p0 is based on the fact
that in the experiments at PALS, the contribution of protons
with ep0 < 280 keV into generation of alpha particles can be
considered negligible due to both small rð1Þ at proton kinetic
energy ep < 280 keV and short paths of almost all of such
protons in nonablated target material or/and plasma2–6 (addi-
tional acceleration by microscopic electric field arising due
to irradiation of the target2,3,7 was important only for some
of the alpha particles and protons). The maximum value of
ep0 is about 0:64ea .1,8 Thus, ep0  280 keV at ea  437:5
keV. Assuming that the cross section r2 for scattering under
consideration is about that for Rutherford scattering (see
Refs. 1, 8, and 9), we obtain that at such ea
 
1:629 ea ½MeV
r2 ½b  1 : (2)
ðea ½MeVÞ2 0:4375
Eq. (2) yields the maximum value rmax 2 of r2 about 2.13 b
and corresponds to ea ¼ 875 keV.
According to Picciotto et al.,2 in the targets used in the
aforementioned experiments, the maximum value of density
ntB11 of 11B was about 1022 cm–3 , while the density ntH of
hydrogen was greater than 1020 cm–3 . Eliezer et al.1 com-
pared the probabilities of collisions of alpha particles with
a)
M.Shmatov@mail.ioffe.ru
1070-664X/2016/23(9)/094703/2/$30.00 23, 094703-1
protons and ions of boron, assuming that in plasma arising in
these experiments the density npl p of protons was larger than
the density npl B11 of boron ions by a factor of 10. Assuming
that ntH =ntB11 was also about ten and using ntB11  1022 cm–3
from Ref. 2, we obtain
ntH  1023 cm–3 : (3)
Note that the ratio of this value to the lower boundary of ntH
from Ref. 2 equals 1000 and the density of atoms in crystal
silicon is about 4:99  1022 cm–3 ,10 i.e., less than the right-
hand side of Eq. (3) by a factor of about 2. Therefore, Eq. (3)
seems to overestimate ntH . Note also that ntB11 was about
1022 cm–3 only in a layer with thickness of about 100 nm,
while the total thickness sabl of target material ablated during
the time of generation of alpha particles was at least about
pl
10 lm.2,3 Therefore, npl t t
p =nB11 could be greater than nH =nB11
due to diffusion of boron ions in plasma.
Let us denote the average number of protons that are
accelerated by alpha particles, generated by one reaction (1),
to ep0  280 keV as Npef f . In order to demonstrate that in the
experiments at PALS1–3 Npef f was much less than unity, let
us find the alpha particle path la1 corresponding to the
condition
Npef f ¼ 1 (4)
in the simplified situation when alpha particle with ea ¼ const
¼ 875 keV moves in a medium with proton density np
¼ 1023 cm–3 (see Eq. (3)). Since at the sufficiently low pef f
ap ,
corresponding to negligible probability of the acceleration of
more than one proton by one alpha particle, Npef f  3pef f
ap and
max
the choice of ea corresponds to r2 ¼ const ¼ r2 , condition
(4) will be satisfied at expðrmax
2 np la1 Þ  2=3 (see, e.g., Ref.
11). Using this equation, we obtain la1  1:9 cm and
ntH la1  1:9  1023 cm–2 .
Some of the alpha particles generated in the experiments
at PALS hit nonablated target material.2,3 According to
Picciotto et al.,2 for alpha particles generated by reaction (1),
the maximum initial value of ea was about 5.5 MeV, and sec-
ondary nuclear reactions could generate alpha particles with
ea up to about 10 MeV. Microscopic electric field arising due
to irradiation of the target2,3,7 decelerated at least some of
the alpha particles moving toward nonablated target mate-
rial. Even if this deceleration and a decrease in ea due to
Published by AIP Publishing.
094703-2 Mikhail L. Shmatov
collisions of alpha particles with plasma particles were negli-
gible, the alpha particle path lta in nonablated target material
was of the order of 10 lm or less. For example, the ranges of
alpha particles with ea ¼ 5:5 and 10 MeV in silicon are about
6:487  103 and 1:625  102 g=cm2 , respectively.5 The
density of crystal silicon is about 2.328 g=cm3 .10 Assuming
that at fixed ea , lta is about the path of alpha particle in crystal
silicon (see also Refs. 1–3), we obtain
lta ðea ¼ 5:5 MeVÞ  28 lm  1:5  10–3 la1 ;
lta ðea ¼ 10 MeVÞ  70 lm  3:7  10–3 la1 :
Thus, in nonablated target material, pef f
ap  1 and, therefore,
the acceleration of protons by alpha particles is not physi-
cally important.
When analyzing the importance of the acceleration of
protons by alpha particles in plasma, it is convenient to com-
pare ntH la1 with the maximum value fmax of parameter
Ð1
f ¼ 0 npl pl pl
p dla , where la is the path of alpha particle in the
plasma. If an increase in lpla due to scattering of alpha particles
were negligible, fmax would not be greater than ntH ltmax , where
ltmax is the maximum dimension of target region transformed
into the plasma. In the experiments at PALS, the diameter dir
of irradiated target region was about 80 lm.2,3 The value
sabl  10 lm corresponds to the time when the laser pulse
energy delivered to the target is about 50 J, while the total laser
pulse energy is about 500 J.2 Although it is possible that gener-
ation of alpha particles occurred at sabl  10 lm (Ref. 2), let
us estimate ltmax assuming that sabl  ð500 J=50 JÞ  10 lm
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
¼ 100 lm and ltmax  dir2 þ s2abl  130 lm. According to
this estimate, ntH lmax
t  1:3  1021 cm–2  7  103 ntH la1 and
the acceleration of protons by alpha particles in plasma is not
important even if there is a significant increase in lpl
a due to
scattering and deceleration of alpha particles due to their colli-
sions with plasma particles is negligible or is compensated for
by the microscopic electric field.
It should be emphasized that collisional deceleration of
alpha particles in plasma is one of the main factors determin-
ing the exact values of lpl ef f ef f
a , pap , and Np (see also Refs. 1, 6,
and 12–14), but the smallness of pap and Npef f in the experi-
ef f
ments at PALS can be demonstrated even without taking
into account this effect. The conclusion about the smallness
of these parameters remains valid even if Eq. (2) underesti-
mates r2 at ea of several MeV (see Ref. 9).
The choice of emin p0 is justified by the following. At ep
< 280 keV, rð1Þ  0:24 b.4 The cross section of 0.24 b corre-
sponds to a narrow resonance at ep  160 keV; outside of
this resonance, rð1Þ ðep < 280 keVÞ is about 0.1 b (at ep of
Phys. Plasmas 23, 094703 (2016)
about 280 keV) or less.4 It is possible to show that if proton
with ep ¼ const ¼ 160 keV moves in a medium with the 11B
density of 1022 cm–3 (see Ref. 2), the probability ppð1Þ of the
participation of the proton in reaction (1) equals 0.1 when
the path of the proton in the medium is as long as 44 cm. The
path of proton with ep0 ¼ 280 keV in crystal silicon is about
2.9 lm.5,10 Thus, in nonablated target material,
ppð1Þ ðep0 < 280 keVÞ  1. Estimates similar to those used
when analyzing the importance of the acceleration of protons
by alpha particles in plasma yield that in plasma ppð1Þ ðep0
< 280 keVÞ is also much less than unity.
In conclusion, note that in the experiments at PALS,
ppð1Þ was low at any ep0 . This follows from the fact that the
maximum of rð1Þ is about 1.2 b (it corresponds to ep of about
650–675 keV)1,4,15 and estimates similar to those presented
above. Therefore, the physically important manifestation of
an avalanche process similar to that discussed by Eliezer
et al.1 would be possible only at Npef f 1.
1
S. Eliezer, H. Hora, G. Korn, N. Nissim, and J. M. Martinez Val, Phys.
Plasmas 23, 050704 (2016).
2
A. Picciotto, D. Margarone, A. Velyhan, P. Bellutti, J. Krasa, A.
Szydlowsky, G. Bertuccio, Y. Shi, A. Mangione, J. Prokupek, A.
Malinowska, E. Krousky, J. Ullschmied, L. Laska, M. Kucharik, and G.
Korn, Phys. Rev. X 4, 031030 (2014).
3
D. Margarone, A. Picciotto, A. Velyhan, J. Krasa, M. Kucharik, A.
Mangione, A. Szydlowsky, A. Malinowska, G. Bertuccio, Y. Shi, M.
Civellari, J. Ullschmied, P. Bellutti, and G. Korn, Plasma Phys. Controlled
Fusion 57, 014030 (2015).
4
W. M. Nevins and R. Swain, Nucl. Fusion 40, 865 (2000).
5
M. J. Berger, J. S. Coursey, M. A. Zuker, and J. Chang, see www.nist/gov/
pml/data/star for Stopping-Power and Range Tables for Electrons, Protons
and Helium Ions, 2009.
6
V. Yu. Bychenkov, W. Rozmus, A. Maksimchuk, D. Umstadter, and C. E.
Capjack, Fiz. Plazmy 27, 1076 (2001). [Plasma Phys. Rep. 27, 1017
(2001)].
7
D. Margarone, J. Krasa, A. Picciotto, L. Torrisi, L. Laska, A. Velyhan, J.
Prokupek, L. Ryc, P. Parys, J. Ullschmied, and B. Rus, Nucl. Instrum.
Methods Phys. Res. A 653, 159 (2011).
8
L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Mechanics, 2nd ed. (Pergamon Press,
1962).
9
G. Freier, E. Lampi, W. Sleator, and J. H. Williams, Phys. Rev. 75, 1345
(1949).
10
S. S. Berdonosov, in Fizicheskaya Encyclopediya [Physical
Encyclopedia], edited by A. M. Prokhorov (Sovetskaya Encyclopediya,
1990), Vol. 2, p. 489 [in Russian].
11
E. S. Ventzel, Lectures on Game Theory (Gordon and Breach, 1961).
12
H. Hora, G. Korn, L. Giuffrida, D. Margarone, A. Picciotto, J. Krasa, K.
Jungwirth, J. Ullschmied, P. Lalousis, S. Eliezer, G. H. Miley, S.
Moustaizis, and G. Mourou, Laser Part. Beams 33, 607 (2015).
13
V. S. Belyaev, V. P. Krainov, A. P. Matafonov, and B. V. Zagreev, Laser
14
Phys. Lett. 12, 096001 (2015).
M. L. Shmatov, Yad. Fiz. 79, 456 (2016). [Phys. At. Nucl. 79, 666
(2016)].
15
V. F. Dmitriev, Yad. Fiz. 72, 1211 (2009). [Phys. At. Nucl. 72, 1165
(2009)].