As I understand, this represents sufficient energy to overcome the Coulomb Barrier [1] which naturally repels atoms apart. To cause fusion, you need to push particles together either hard enough or fast enough that they push through this repulsion and fuse. The repulsion is a product of the electrostatic repulsion of the positive charges of the nuclei (pushing the positive ends of two magnets together, essentially).
The temperature of a gas is essentially a measure of the constituent particles' kinetic energy. Higher kinetic energy = higher temperature. 10keV represents enough kinetic energy for the D-T atoms to collide fast enough that they overcome the Couloumb repulsion and fuse together.
A system of particles in thermal equilibrium will contain a small fraction whose kinetic energy exceeds the average by a factor of 10. Also, the energy available in the center-of-mass frame of two colliding particles is higher if they happen to be moving in opposite directions. That could give you another factor of up to 2. In any event, I don't think you want your fuel fusing all at once!
Expanding on this, this 10KeV temperature is the average of all particles, and there's a distribution around this average. Some will be higher, and thus more capable of colliding with high energy.
In addition to that, whether two nuclei fuse is also dependent on how squarely they collide. A glancing blow intuitively allows both nuclei to push each other away a lot easier than if they experience a head-on collision.
A graph of the fusion rate such as [1] shows that even at much lower average temperatures, fusion will occasionally happen when two higher-than-average nuclei collide head-on. As the temperature gets higher, this rate increases as more particles have enough energy and less require those head-on collisions. The peak rate for D-T according to this graph is about 70kEv.
I can't speak to why the grandparent's link referenced 100kEv, as it's been a decade since I last studied this and I'm very rusty.
How does one control the chain reaction of the fusion process? I understand fission reactors using control rods to absorb some of the neutrons to prevent those neutrons from hitting other fissile particles, but this seems like a harder problem. Those particles fusing at a "low" temperature in the distribution of equilibrium cause additional fusion reactions at higher temperature thresholds in other particles because of the energy released, if my mental model is correct? And assuming the fuel is gaseous, the idea of a control/absorptive retarder seems like a much harder problem. Edit: Oh! Maybe they reduce the strength of the magnetic containment field? Which reduces pressure inside the reaction chamber and thus reducing temperature?
In addition to this there is also a quantum effect called quantum tunneling [1] which allows for a very tiny probability for particles with insufficient energy to fuse upon collision anyway.
The Wiki entry also mentioned "two effects that lower the actual temperature needed", one being average kinetic energy and the other quantum tunneling "if [nuclei] have nearly enough energy." The term "nearly" isn't precisely defined though.
There isn’t a hard limit. But as you get farther away from the amount of energy that would be “enough” without tunneling, the probability of tunneling falls off exponentially.
Quantum tunneling effects are generally (maybe always?) exponentially unlikely, in the sense that the probability of tunneling will decay exponentially with the discrepancy between energy-available and energy-required.
They may be trying to differentiate between high temperature as "fast", like in this case, and high pressure as "hard". Though both can lead to a particle kinetic energy above the Coloumb barrier, in the former case the time between collisions will be lower (AFAICT), which may be important. I'm not a plasma guy though.
Sorry, I should've been much clearer, that was really badly worded as I was distracted also doing my day job :) As a sibling comment pointed out, I wasn't using any specific terminology as I was trying to talk at a layman level. There's not really a difference. I should've said 'hard enough and fast enough'.
Conceptually, there's two main methods of fusion - inertial confinement, and magnetic confinement.
In inertial confinement, lasers are shot at the plasma to squeeze it together so the pressure (and thus temperature) increases until fusion occurs. This is also what happens in stars, except they use gravity not lasers. Conceptually, this is what I alluded to when pushing it 'harder'
In magnetic confinement, the pressure/temperature is increased by shooting electrical currents through the plasma among other techniques that i'm not as familiar with. The volume hasn't really decreased, but the kinetic energy and pressure of the plasma has increased so it's the same principle, but this is conceptually what I alluded to when i said pushing it 'faster'.
In either sense, the idea is to somehow increase the plasma temperature which increases the kinetic energy of the particles enough that they overcome the electrostatic barrier. It was just really badly worded by me and I apologise for that!
I guess hard is something inside the star where matter is compressed by gravity and fast is when you're accelerating matter. In the end it's the same, only you can't use gravity for small reactors to replicate star technology yet, so you must accelerate particles.
SciFi likes to talk about antigravitation. But supergravitation would be cool as well :)
GP isn't using standard terminology, but I would presume "hard" was in reference to more mass, which results in higher kinetic energy at lower temperatures.
