Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

pp reaction cross section #2

Open
RemDelaporteMathurin opened this issue Mar 28, 2021 · 8 comments
Open

pp reaction cross section #2

RemDelaporteMathurin opened this issue Mar 28, 2021 · 8 comments

Comments

@RemDelaporteMathurin
Copy link

Hi! thanks for that great package. Very useful!

I'd like to plot cross sections with the pp reaction. Do you think there's a way of adding this to fusion_cross_sections.py ?

I've come up with that script so far but must've messed up something with the units...

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.constants import e, atomic_mass, hbar


ev_to_joule = 1.60218e-19  # J/eV
barn_to_m2 = 1e-28  # m2/b

E = np.logspace(0, 6)  # eV


A1 = A2 = 1.0072765
mu = atomic_mass*A1*A2/(A1+A2)
vel = (2*E*ev_to_joule/mu)**0.5

eta = e**2/hbar/vel
S_0 = 4e-25*1e6  # eV b
S_prime_0 = 11.2  # b
S = S_0 + S_prime_0 * E
cross_section = S/E*np.exp(-2*np.pi*eta)
cross_section *= barn_to_m2

plt.plot(E, cross_section)
plt.xscale("log")
plt.yscale("log")
plt.show()
@alfkoehn
Copy link
Owner

Thanks for your kind words, greatly appreciated!

Concerning your request: I have actually done that in a lecture I gave 2 month ago and I wanted to add that to the plot-script here. I will have a close look at your code and compare it with my code over the next days (somewhat busy these days, sorry) and then come back to you here - I'm curious to see if there are any difference :)

@alfkoehn
Copy link
Owner

Well, I've just realized that I have already added that to the fusion_reactivity plot :)

Is that what you were looking for?

@RemDelaporteMathurin
Copy link
Author

hi @alfkoehn thanks for reaching out!

This is indeed what I was looking for 😄 I had similar results for pp cross sections (waaayy lower than DD, DT...). Shall I start a PR to add this to fusion_cross_sections.py ?

@alfkoehn
Copy link
Owner

hi @RemDelaporteMathurin, sorry for my extremely late answer! Isn't this what you are looking for: https://github.com/alfkoehn/fusion_plots/tree/master/fusion_reactivity , i.e. in my understanding your suggestion is already part of the package?

@RemDelaporteMathurin
Copy link
Author

hi @alfkoehn , no probs

You are right it is included in fusion_reactiviy, but not in cross sections (which are a bit different). I know that the pp cross section would be way lower, but maybe users could have the possibility to add it.

It's a nice comparison sometimes required to show why we cannot simply burn H-H plasmas

@alfkoehn
Copy link
Owner

Ah, you're right of course. I'm just wondering now why I haven't included them... will look into it and comment here as soon as I have added them.

@RemDelaporteMathurin
Copy link
Author

I'm just wondering now why I haven't included them..

One reason might be that the pp cross section is so low, it would squish all the curves and we wouldn't see anything. But that's the point in a way. I find it useful to say: "this is the cross sections of DD DT etc. Why don't we use HH? well here it is, down below"

@jhillairet
Copy link
Contributor

I was also looking for the pp cross section, but according to:

Adelberger, E.G., et al.., 1998. Solar fusion cross sections. Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 1265–1291. https://doi.org/10/ftx3j3

However, the rate for the fundamental p + p -> 2D + e+ + nu_e reaction is too small to be measured in the laboratory. Instead, the cross section for the p-p reaction must be calculated from standard weak-interaction theory.

And indeed I didn't manage to find experimental values for p-p in any paper. I didn't try to make it from the analytical expression presented in the paper.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants