Micro-Burst Fusion Reactor (MBFR)

Scalable D–T inertial fusion for low-cost electricity (concept study)

Important: MBFR is a private conceptual design, not a licensed reactor or an approved industrial product. All numbers below are order-of-magnitude design points, not validated engineering guarantees.

Plain-language overview (for non-specialists)

• What MBFR is: a power-plant concept that makes heat by firing many tiny fusion bursts each second. There is no large, long-lived plasma to confine; instead the system runs on rapid, well-timed microbursts. The heat then drives a standard thermal cycle (turbine or similar) to make electricity.
• How one burst works: a small frozen fuel pellet (deuterium + tritium) travels through the chamber. A millimetre-wave maser can pre-heat the surface so the main ultraviolet lasers couple more uniformly. The lasers fire for a few nanoseconds; the pellet fuses and produces helium nuclei (alphas) and neutrons. Nearby structures and a liquid blanket absorb this energy as heat.
• Why bigger plants are cheaper: the cost per fuel pellet scales only weakly with plant size, but drivers, shielding, tritium systems, turbine island and staff are largely fixed-cost. A commercial MBFR plant therefore targets roughly 400–600 MWe by using multiple chambers and many synchronized microburst chains.
• Safety in plain terms: radiation is not eliminated, but it is confined. Neutrons are absorbed in a thick lithium-based blanket and structural shield; tritium circulates in sealed loops with permeation barriers and detritiation; double-wall heat-exchangers with a monitored helium sweep space are used wherever tritium can approach water or steam circuits.
• Status: this page summarizes a conceptual reactor architecture, a candidate “golden-mean” operating window, and several spreadsheet tools for preliminary energy- and cost-scaling. It is intended as a structured design note, not a claim of experimental proof.

Acronyms & units (quick glossary)

• D / T: deuterium / tritium (isotopes of hydrogen; T is radioactive).
• α (alpha): helium-4 nucleus made by fusion; n: neutron.
• kJ / MJ: kilo / mega-joule (1 MJ = 10⁶ J). MeV: million electron-volts (particle-energy unit).
• Hz / ns / µs / ps: per-second / nanosecond / microsecond / picosecond.
• MW(th) / MWe: thermal / electric megawatts.
• Gain (G): fusion energy out divided by driver optical energy in.
• η_laser / η_th→e: laser wall-plug efficiency / thermal-to-electric efficiency.
• Rep-rate: shots per second per chamber.
• FLiBe: LiF–BeF₂ molten salt; PbLi: lead–lithium alloy (blanket candidates).
• DPSSL: diode-pumped solid-state laser (frequency-tripled to UV).
• Maser / gyrotron: high-power millimetre-wave source for pre-heating pellets.
• sCO₂: supercritical carbon-dioxide power cycle.
• LCOE: levelised cost of electricity; O&M: operations & maintenance; WACC: weighted average cost of capital; CF: capacity factor; NOAK: nth-of-a-kind plant.
• ALARA: “as low as reasonably achievable” (radiation-safety principle).
• TVL: tenth-value layer — thickness that cuts radiation by 10×.
• MCNP / Serpent / OpenMC: standard neutron-transport simulation codes.
• FPGA / PTP / PLC / RTOS: field-programmable gate array / Precision Time Protocol / programmable logic controller / real-time operating system.

Fusion Electricity Generation Project Report

PART 1: Theoretical Foundation & System Concept

This section describes the basic physical idea of MBFR at the kJ-per-burst, 10 kW–200 kW thermal scale, suitable for an early demonstrator.

1. Principle
   • No long-lived, magnetically confined plasma is attempted.
   • Instead, discrete D–T microbursts are triggered: \( \mathrm{D + T \rightarrow He^4 + n + 17.6\,MeV} \).
   • Bursts recur at several Hz, creating an effectively steady heat output.
   • Each burst is fully contained; surrounding structures and blanket absorb the energy as heat which is then converted to electricity.
2. Critical constants for the demonstrator scale
   • Fuel: frozen deuterium–tritium pellets supplied from a centralized tritium-handling facility.
   • Burst energy (prototype): ~1 kJ; adjustable via pellet mass and compression.
   • Rep-rate: 5–20 Hz per chamber (laboratory-scale mechanical speeds).
   • Ignition driver: DPSSL at ~1064 nm (frequency-converted to UV for direct drive).
3. Design objectives
   • Minimal off-site radiation; neutrons are captured in a compact blanket and shielding stack.
   • No huge superconducting magnets, no tokamak-scale vacuum vessel.
   • Components chosen, where possible, from existing industrial technologies: high-rep DPSSLs, cryogenics, high-speed injectors, molten-salt loops, and standard turbine islands.
   • Modular and scalable: many small, identical microburst modules rather than one giant experimental device.

PART 2: Engineering Overview of 10 kW Unit

This is an entry-level engineering target: a 10 kW thermal microburst module that can be constructed and tested with realistic budgets.

• Fusion ignition chain
  • Frozen D–T pellets (~10–50 µm radius) fired through the chamber focal region.
  • Each pellet is hit by a short <10 ns laser pulse, giving ~1 kJ fusion yield in the initial prototypes.
  • Energy is absorbed mainly by a tungsten or graphite absorber block with embedded coolant channels.
• Example operating points
  • Example A (very small test): 1 kJ per burst at 10 Hz → 10 kW thermal, ~240 kWh/day if operated continuously.
  • Example B (“golden-mean” demonstrator module): 10 kJ per burst at 20 Hz → 200 kW thermal; with 30% conversion → ~60 kW electric (≈1,440 kWh/day).
• Prototype technology choices
  • Pellet injector: cryogenic pellet source with piezo/servo pusher and optical pellet-position sensor.
  • Ignition: DPSSL stack (~50–100 J/pulse optical) with capacitor-bank supply.
  • Absorber: tungsten block from existing high-temperature suppliers; possible graphene additions later.
  • Cooling: pressurized water for the smallest modules; higher-temperature liquids (NaK, FLiBe) reserved for later phases.
  • Control: MCU / FPGA timing board with hardware interlocks and watchdogs.

PART 3: Component Schematics (Summary)

Detailed schematics are in the DOCX / CAD downloads. At a high level:

• Pellet injector: cryogenic nozzle forms µm-scale frozen beads; a piezo or servo stage pushes single pellets into the firing line, with optical confirmation and a mechanical ejector for jams.
• Fusion chamber: small stainless steel vessel (≲50 cm characteristic size) with boron-carbide lining; 2–4 laser ports with AR-coated windows; vacuum at ~10^-3 atm.
• Absorber + cooling: tungsten block (order 10–50 cm³) with drilled coolant channels; water loop for prototypes, liquid metals for higher temperatures later.
• Energy conversion: initial tests use thermoelectric modules for simplicity; later designs prefer microturbines or sCO₂ loops.
• Control system: FPGA/MCU handles shot timing, pellet alignment, driver interlocks, and emergency shutdowns.

PART 4: Immediate Tasks and Future Extensions

• Near-term engineering tasks
  • Finalize injector + chamber schematics at the 1–10 kJ, ≤20 Hz level.
  • Run time-dependent heat-transfer simulations from absorber to coolant and to any TEGs.
  • Lay out timing + safety PCB, including hardware-level abort logic.
  • Prepare procurement + build timeline (~6–9 months for a first non-nuclear test rig).
• Future extensions
  • Chain several modules to aggregate to 100–500 kW thermal.
  • Replace low-temperature TEGs by high-efficiency turbine cycles.
  • Introduce adaptive optics and feedback control for ignition symmetry.
  • Develop closed-loop driver re-charging powered purely from blanket electricity.

PART 5: Complete Modular Fusion Power Plant Architecture

At plant scale, many small chambers and injectors are combined into a modular power block. A very simplified view:

• Fuel supply: D–T pellets (~0.5–1 mm) stored at ~20 K in cryogenic reservoirs, feeding multiple injectors arranged in rings.
• Pellet injector ring: each injector has independent actuators and sensors; combined rep-rate can theoretically reach MHz at the pellet level if each microburst is kept small and the chambers are multiplexed.
• Laser ignition bank: multiple DPSSL arrays around each chamber, with staggered firing windows in the sub-µs range.
• Microburst chamber: modular 1–2 m shells with internal lithium-bearing tiles and access ports for injectors and beams.
• Alpha capture tubes: helical magnetic coils guide α’s into long spiral tubes where kinetic energy becomes wall heat. Neutrons are handled by the blanket.
• Neutron absorption blanket: Li- or PbLi-based layers around the chamber to convert 14.1 MeV neutrons into heat and tritium.
• Thermal buffer: large molten-salt or liquid-metal volumes smooth pulsed heat into a steady thermal source.
• Electricity generation: small units use TEGs; serious plants use steam/sCO₂ turbines (30–40% efficiency plausible).
• Energy storage / grid interface: LiFePO₄ or sodium-ion batteries plus smart inverters for grid integration.
• Central control: synchronizes injectors, drivers, vacuum, blankets, cooling, and grid output with multiple layers of protection.

Conclusion (for PART 1–5)

MBFR replaces sustained-plasma confinement with a sequence of discrete, externally timed D–T microbursts, combined with blanket heat recycling and tritium breeding. The project currently lives at the stage of concept definition, analytical estimates, and spreadsheet-based system studies, with the first physical target being a sub-MW demonstrator in the 10–200 kW range.

Current Research : Sustained Plasma

Most large fusion programs (tokamaks, stellarators, mainstream ICF) aim at either:

• a single extremely powerful burst (e.g. NIF), or
• a long-lived, high-temperature plasma column (tokamaks, stellarators).

MBFR takes a different stance:

• ignore long-lived plasmas and design for short, repetitive microbursts whose energy is engineered from the start to be compatible with mechanical, thermal, and materials limits, and
• treat alpha channeling as a first-class design element rather than an afterthought: α’s are charged and therefore steerable, not just unwanted wall-heating agents.

In the MBFR concept, alpha particles are guided into cyclotron-like helical tubes using magnetic optics. Instead of dumping their energy into a small spot on a chamber wall, their kinetic energy is spread along long conductive paths and converted into usable heat more gently.

Microburst Fusion Power Plant

This section summarizes a full-plant architecture based on pipelined microbursts, alpha channeling and neutron blankets.

• Fuel & injectors: multiple cryogenic D–T pellet injectors arranged in rings around each chamber, firing at ~5–20 Hz per injector in near-term concepts, with the option of higher aggregate rates via multiple chambers.
• Ignition module: DPSSL banks synchronized to pellet arrival within nanoseconds; masers or gyrotrons may pre-heat pellet surfaces.
• Chamber: moderate vacuum, ~1–2 m overall scale, designed for continuous microbursts rather than huge explosions.
• Alpha capture: helical magnetic fields steer α’s into spiral tubes where their energy is converted to heat along the tube walls.
• Neutron blanket: Li-rich or PbLi blankets capture neutrons, breed tritium, and generate most of the thermal power.
• Thermal buffer & turbines: molten-salt or liquid-metal reservoirs smooth pulses; turbines or sCO₂ cycles turn this into electricity.
• Control & diagnostics: central control synchronizes injection, ignition, magnetic steering, coolant flow and grid output; anomalies trigger fast shutdown.

Illustrative module:

If one module operates at 10 kJ per burst and 20 Hz:

\( 10\,\text{kJ} \times 20\,\text{s}^{-1} = 200\,\text{kW}_\text{th} \), and with 30% conversion → ~60 kW electric, enough for roughly 10–15 modern homes (capacity-factor dependent).

The Golden Mean Principle for Microburst Fusion Design

There are two obvious failure modes:

• Bursts too small, repetition too high: injector and driver hardware wear out, alignment errors accumulate, control electronics are stressed, and the system becomes unreliable.
• Bursts too large: plasma exceeds containment, instabilities grow and chamber loads become mechanically or thermally unacceptable.

The “golden-mean” idea is to pick a window where:

• burst energy is high enough to make ignition worthwhile, but small enough for realistic containment and materials; and
• rep-rate is high enough to give steady power, but low enough for mechanical, thermal and control stability.

With roughly today’s laser and materials technology, a plausible near-term “golden-mean” band is:

• burst energy in the range ~1–5 kJ for early demonstrators;
• rep-rates of ~10–100 Hz per chamber; and
• chamber sizes of order 1–2 m, modest magnetic fields, and strong neutron shielding.

Sections 14 and 23 then explore what happens when the same logic is extrapolated to much larger bursts (tens of MJ) for a fully self-powered closed cycle. Those are forward-looking estimates, not claims of current industrial capability.

Golden Mean Microburst Fusion Reactor Specification Sheet

This specification sheet captures one candidate operating point compatible with current or near-term technology.

• Fuel: frozen D–T pellets, 0.5–1.0 mm diameter, ~0.1–1 mg mass, at ~20 K.
• Microburst: burst energy 1–5 kJ; burn duration ≤5 µs; plasma volume ≤10 mm³; magnetic fields in the few-tesla range (if used at all) mainly for alpha steering.
• Injection & ignition: 10–100 pellets/s; DPSSL ignition pulses (2–10 kJ electrical per burst at current laser efficiencies), with multi-bank configuration for continuous operation.
• Chamber: 1–2 m diameter, ~10^-3 atm vacuum; Li-bearing inner walls; cooled first wall and blanket.
• Energy capture: molten salts or liquid metals as thermal buffers, TEGs for low-power rigs, turbines for >50 kW modules.
• Control: real-time coordination of injection, ignition, magnetic optics and thermal management; redundant interlocks.

Microburst Fusion Reactor for Consumer Electricity Generation

For consumer-level electricity, the MBFR concept scales modules in number, not in individual burst violence. A household or microgrid system would consist of:

• a cluster of microburst chambers operating in the 1–10 kJ, 10–100 Hz range;
• a shared blanket and thermal buffer feeding a compact turbine or high-temperature TEG stack; and
• a control system that matches burst rate to load, while respecting thermal and materials limits.

All of this remains conceptual until a small experimental unit is built and characterized; the goal here is to show a consistent path from laboratory scale to something that could, in principle, serve homes, industry or vehicles.

Tritium Breeding

Any D–T system must address tritium scarcity. MBFR assumes:

• tritium is initially supplied from centralized facilities, and
• a lithium-based blanket is used both to absorb neutrons and to breed fresh tritium via reactions such as: \( n + {}^{6}\mathrm{Li} \rightarrow {}^{4}\mathrm{He} + \mathrm{T} + 4.8\,\mathrm{MeV} \).

The blanket is therefore a dual system:

• neutron-to-heat converter feeding the thermal cycle; and
• tritium factory keeping the overall D–T chain close to fuel self-sufficiency (TBR > 1).

Feasibility Report

This section, together with the Excel workbooks, builds a simple energy-budget view of a microburst reactor:

• each D–T microburst releases 17.6 MeV per reaction, ~80% of which leaves as neutron energy and ~20% as alpha energy;
• the blanket plus turbine converts only a fraction of the neutron energy to electricity (35–40% is a realistic medium-term target);
• the driver chain (electricity → laser → plasma coupling) also has a net efficiency of only a few to maybe ten percent;
• for a fully self-sustaining ignition cycle, the blanket-generated electricity must exceed the driver demand with sufficient margin for all auxiliary loads and losses.

The conclusion is straightforward: very small bursts (≲1 MJ) are useful for physics and engineering studies, but commercially interesting, fully self-powered systems likely require microbursts in the tens of MJ per shot plus significantly improved blanket and driver efficiencies. The spreadsheets in sections 18–22 are designed to explore these trade-offs parametrically.

Microburst needed for Sustainable Fusion Reactor

This section explores, on paper, a “large microburst” regime where a single burst releases on the order of 30 MJ. With:

• ~80% of energy in neutrons;
• a blanket efficiency of ~40% to electricity; and
• a total ignition-chain efficiency (electric → laser → plasma) of ~8%;

one finds that a 30 MJ burst could, in principle, generate several MJ of net electrical surplus after paying its own ignition cost. At 1–10 bursts per second that corresponds to tens of MW of electrical power per chamber.

These numbers are illustrative only. Achieving such bursts at useful repetition rates with acceptable chamber loading would demand driver, optics, materials and blanket performance well beyond what is available today. The point is to show that, on paper, a self-sustaining cycle is not excluded by basic energetics; the true bottlenecks are technological.

Fusion Microburst Reactor — Full System Block Diagram

This block diagram summarizes the intended energy loop:

• external grid supplies initial power for drivers and auxiliaries;
• drivers ignite microbursts in the fusion chamber;
• neutrons heat blanket and breed tritium; α’s are (partly) channeled;
• blanket heat runs a turbine / sCO₂ cycle;
• generated electricity feeds back driver and control loads and supplies net power to the grid.

At true commercial scale, multiple such loops would be combined in parallel and backed by large thermal buffers.

Prototype Fusion Reactor

This section outlines how to move from conceptual block diagrams to a first experimental system:

• Ignition-cycle simulation: simple numerical models (or the provided spreadsheets) track fusion output, blanket absorption, driver requirements and cooling constraints through repeated microbursts.
• Blanket-material selection: neutron transport codes and material databases are used to choose Li-based mixtures with acceptable Tritium breeding ratio, thermal properties and radiation tolerance.
• Burst-rate vs cooling limits: each burst deposits a certain amount of heat into walls and blanket; coolant capacity and allowable temperature rise then set an upper bound on repetition rate.

The goal is not to pretend that a nuclear prototype can be built tomorrow, but to show a consistent chain from simple models, to non-nuclear hardware tests, to eventual nuclear integration.

CAD Blueprint: D–T Microburst Fusion Reactor with Tritium Breeder

The figures linked below give an initial CAD-level geometry for:

• a central fusion chamber with D–T pellet injector,
• a ringed UV laser array, and
• a surrounding tritium-breeding blanket.

Laser array concept (example numbers, adjustable):

• inner radius 0.5–0.75 m from pellet center;
• ~10 concentric rings with ~30 lasers each (~300 lasers total);
• ~10 J per laser per pulse → ~3 kJ optical per shot in this particular configuration;
• pulse duration ~10 ns with sub-ns relative timing jitter;
• individual liquid-cooled DPSSL modules with hot-swappable mounts.

These values can be rescaled once more reliable ignition-threshold estimates exist.

Excel spreadsheet template

The Excel workbook Fusion_Microburst_Simulator_Final.xlsx implements a simple per-burst energy budget:

• inputs: fusion energy per burst, neutron fraction, blanket efficiency, driver efficiencies and coolant power;
• outputs: neutron energy, blanket electricity, estimated ignition energy requirement, surplus electricity, wall heat per burst, cooling time and maximum burst rate.

It is intended as a compact first tool for exploring how burst energy, efficiencies and cooling capacity interact.

Fusion_Microburst_Simulator_Final.xlsx

Multi-Stage Microburst Chains

Fusion_Microburst_Chain_Simulator.xlsx extends the single-burst model to chains of bursts at various repetition rates:

• parameter: bursts per second (1–20 in the default sheet);
• outputs: net surplus electricity (MJ/s), coolant load (MJ/s), and a simple “within cooling limit?” flag for each burst rate;
• charts: surplus vs burst rate, cooling load vs burst rate.

Fusion_Microburst_Chain_Simulator.xlsx

Tritium Breeding Chain Estimator

Fusion_Microburst_TritiumChain.xlsx adds a basic tritium bookkeeping model on top of the chain simulator:

• inputs: tritium breeding ratio (TBR), tritium usage per burst, and a simple scaling of “tritium units” per MJ of neutron energy;
• outputs: tritium produced per second, tritium consumed per second, and net tritium balance as a function of burst rate.

The purpose is not to replace full neutronics, but to see quickly which parameter ranges are even compatible with tritium self-sufficiency.

Fusion_Microburst_TritiumChain.xlsx

Material Fatigue Prediction Module

Fusion_Material_Lifetime_Simulator.xlsx estimates first-wall and blanket lifetimes under repeated microbursts, using simple fatigue and neutron-dose models:

• inputs: temperature rise per burst, fatigue cycle limit, neutron fluence limit, neutron flux per burst and burst frequency;
• outputs: lifetime limited by thermal cycling, lifetime limited by neutron damage, and overall expected lifetime (minimum of the two), as a function of burst rate.

Fusion_Material_Lifetime_Simulator.xlsx

All Excel modules combined

Fusion_Master_Simulator.xlsx combines all the above into a single workbook with:

• global Inputs sheet (fusion energy, efficiencies, TBR, cost parameters, etc.);
• Chain_Energy (per-second energy flows);
• Tritium_Chain (fuel balance);
• Material_Lifetime (component lifetimes);
• Cost_Estimator (very rough replacement cost per GWh based on assumed lifetimes and capital costs).

Fusion_Master_Simulator.xlsx

Smallest Feasible Microburst Fusion Reactor

This section defines a “smallest plausible” MBFR module in the D–T regime, intended as a conceptual lower bound rather than a construction blueprint.

• microburst energy in the 10–30 MJ range (large compared to demonstrator kJ-scale, but small compared to stellar objects);
• burst rates of a few Hz, limited by blanket and wall cooling;
• output in the sub-100 MW electric range if such bursts could be realized reliably.

These numbers are deliberately conservative in power density compared to the bare energetics and emphasize engineering feasibility over mathematical extremals.

Cost of Electricity for Smallest Reactor

The cost estimates in the associated spreadsheets are scenario exercises, not promises. They explore how:

• capital cost (including periodic replacement of high-damage-rate components),
• achievable capacity factor, and
• microburst energetics and repetition rate

translate into a notional levelised cost of electricity. The intent is to see whether MBFR could, in principle, enter the same cost ballpark as advanced fission or large renewables if the technological hurdles were solved.

Large-Scale Microburst Fusion Reactor

Scaling from a single chamber to a large plant involves:

• many chambers operating in parallel, sharing blankets and thermal buffers;
• centralized tritium handling and safety barriers; and
• large turbine islands comparable to current fission or CSP plants.

These ideas are sketched in the DOCX, not repeated in full here.

Applications

Potential applications of an eventual MBFR-type technology, if ever realized:

• Fusion reactor for aeroplane: only conceivable at extremely high technological maturity and with strict mass, safety and regulatory constraints.
• Train: more realistic than aircraft; MBFR could in principle provide on-board power for heavy rail if compactness and shielding issues are solved.
• Home use: would require robust, factory-sealed modules with strong passive safety and extremely long maintenance intervals.
• Tritium bottling (tank, truck, bus, car): conceptually possible but tritium handling and security issues are severe; this remains speculative.

CAD for Smallest Reactor

Additional CAD diagrams for the smallest candidate reactor are referenced in the DOCX and DXF downloads at the top of this page.

Why Our Microburst Household Reactor Needs Far Less Feature

Any hypothetical household-scale MBFR unit would deliberately omit much of the flexibility and experimental instrumentation of a research plant. The key design philosophy would be:

• minimal operational modes;
• strong passive safety features;
• sealed tritium inventory with monitored lifetime; and
• standardized, swappable modules instead of on-site repairs.

Formal Physics Analysis of Microburst Fusion

A more rigorous field-theoretic and kinetic treatment of microburst fusion (plasma physics, transport, radiation hydrodynamics) belongs in separate technical papers, not on this overview page. The MBFR concept is currently documented at the level of energy-budget models, engineering sketches and cost-scaling spreadsheets.

A more rigorous field-theoretic and kinetic treatment of microburst fusion (plasma physics, transport, radiation hydrodynamics) belongs in separate technical papers, not on this overview page. The MBFR concept is currently documented at the level of energy-budget models, engineering sketches and cost-scaling spreadsheets.

Following is merely a brief raw summary.

1. Working definition

Microburst fusion, in this project, means controlled, localized D–T fusion events with:

• Pellet mass in the milligram range (frozen D–T mixture).
• Burn fraction f_burn much less than 1 (only a small part of each pellet burns).
• Burst duration in the range of nanoseconds to microseconds.
• Repetition rate typically 10–100 Hz.

There is no attempt to maintain a large, sustained plasma. The goal is to produce a sequence of small, well-contained fusion bursts whose average thermal output is quasi-steady and can be converted to electricity.

2. Reaction and energy partition

The basic fuel cycle is standard D–T fusion:

D + T → α (3.5 MeV) + n (14.1 MeV), so Q_DT = 17.6 MeV per reaction.

• About 20% of the energy (3.5 MeV) is carried by charged α-particles, which can be confined locally and help heat the micro-plasma.
• About 80% (14.1 MeV) is carried by fast neutrons, which are absorbed in the surrounding blanket and structures, producing heat and breeding tritium.

This section only uses standard, well-known D–T physics; the novelty of MBFR lies in how the reactions are arranged in space, time, and engineering, not in any exotic new cross-sections.

3. Pellet mass, burn fraction and energy per burst

For a D–T mixture, if the pellet mass is m_pellet and the burn fraction is f_burn, the number of reactions is proportional to f_burn × m_pellet. Therefore, the fusion energy released per burst can be written schematically as:

E_fus &propto f_burn × m_pellet.

At full burn, the specific energy of D–T is of order 10¹⁴ J/kg. In MBFR we deliberately keep the burn fraction very small so that each burst remains modest (kilojoule scale), but due to repetition we still obtain substantial average power.

Typical design points in this article are:

• Prototype scale: E_fus ≈ 1 kJ per burst.
• Golden-size module: E_fus ≈ 10 kJ per burst.

4. Module power vs. repetition rate

If each microburst yields E_fus and the repetition rate is f_rep, the average fusion power of one module is:

P_fus = E_fus × f_rep.

The electrical power produced is then:

P_el = η × P_fus,

where η is the overall thermal-to-electric efficiency of the blanket, heat transport and generator (typically 30–40% for conservative steam cycles, higher for advanced options).

Two important examples used in your article are:

• Example A – small prototype: E_fus = 1 kJ, f_rep = 10 Hz → P_fus = 10 kW. With η = 0.3, this gives ≈ 3 kW electric.
• Example B – golden-size module: E_fus = 10 kJ, f_rep = 20 Hz → P_fus = 200 kW. With η = 0.3, this gives ≈ 60 kW electric.

Plant-level power (MW to GW) is then obtained by replicating such modules in parallel, not by pushing a single module into unstable or impractical ranges.

5. Ignition energy and gain per microburst

Let E_ign be the energy that must actually be delivered to the pellet (by lasers or other drivers) to raise part of it to ignition conditions, and let the driver have efficiency η_driver (electrical power to delivered ignition energy).

Then the electrical energy drawn from the bus per burst is:

E_bus = E_ign / η_driver.

The gain per burst, defined at the driver level, is:

G = E_fus / E_bus = η_driver × (E_fus / E_ign).

For an economically useful reactor, we require:

G_net = (η × E_fus) / E_bus ≫ 1,

i.e. the electrical energy recovered from the blanket and generator per burst must comfortably exceed the electrical ignition energy taken from the bus. In practical terms, this means:

• Keeping the ratio E_fus / E_ign as high as feasible by good compression and target design.
• Keeping η_driver and η as high as current technology allows.
• Operating in the “golden” range of pellet size and repetition rate where both engineering and economics are favourable.

6. Non-sustained, non-equilibrium plasma

Because each microburst is extremely short and localized, the usual Lawson criterion (τ n T) for sustained thermal plasmas does not apply in the same way as in tokamaks or stellarators. We do not attempt to keep a macroscopic volume of plasma in equilibrium for seconds; instead:

• We create a small, transient ignition region inside each pellet.
• Allow a limited burn in that region.
• Then immediately quench and remove the energy into solid and liquid structures.

The relevant constraints become:

• Peak temperature and density achieved in the ignition zone.
• Burst-to-burst mechanical and thermal stability of the chamber.
• Average neutron flux and material damage over many years of operation.

7. Theoretical conclusion

Using standard D–T reaction physics and conservative assumptions on efficiencies, a microburst-based reactor is theoretically consistent provided that:

• The pellet mass and repetition rate are chosen in a “golden” range where ignition is achievable with realistic drivers, and chamber stresses remain manageable.
• The per-burst gain G and plant-level G_net are well above unity, as evaluated in your accompanying Excel simulators for various plant sizes.
• Blanket, shielding and tritium-breeding designs are optimized to handle the 14.1 MeV neutrons, converting as much of their energy as possible into useful heat and new fuel rather than damaging structures.

In this sense, the MBFR concept is not a speculative departure from known physics; it is a different engineering regime within standard D–T fusion, aimed directly at economically viable electricity generation rather than large, sustained plasmas.