It shouldn't be a surprise that nuclear fusion reactions can be be caused this way. In some modern nuclear bombs, the initiator, the device that generates the initial neutrons that begin the chain reaction, uses the energy of the chemical implosion to fuse deuterium at the center of the bomb. The average temperature created by the imploding shock wave is much less than required to sustain a fusion reaction, however. But the bell-shaped temperature distribution guarantees that a few atoms at the higher tail of the curve will have a high enough temerature to fuse and generate a few neutrons while the mass is still critical.
It shouldn't be a surprise that nuclear fusion reactions can be be caused this way. In some modern nuclear bombs, the initiator, the device that generates the initial neutrons that begin the chain reaction, uses the energy of the chemical implosion to fuse deuterium at the center of the bomb. The average temperature created by the imploding shock wave is much less than required to sustain a fusion reaction, however. But the bell-shaped temperature distribution guarantees that a few atoms at the higher tail of the curve will have a high enough temerature to fuse and generate a few neutrons while the mass is still critical.
/////////////////////////////
does this mean that theoretically you wouldn't need to sustain a nuclear reaction to get heat. All you'd need to do would be to continuously accoustically bombard the deuterium?
Would there be net energy released? if so at what kind of ratios?
how would that compare to wood or oil or coal?