Answers ------------------------------ Q1 What is sci.physics.fusion about? To quote an early Call-for-votes posting regarding the creation of this newsgroup: Sci.physics.fusion is for discussing fusion and fusion related topics. Technicly this is a movement of a newsgroup alt.fusion to an area of wider distribution. The goal is to make fusion related articles available to everyone and to curtail the crossposting to sci.physics. The group is to be unmoderated. (Kevin Scott, Apr 21 1989) Posters to this newsgroup are welcome to discuss fusion in stars, in tokamaks, in ball lightning, in test-tubes, etc. However, there has traditionally been a strong emphasis on "cold fusion", as the newsgroup was formed primarily to channel the large amount of Usenet traffic caused by the famous Pons & Fleischmann news conference in March '89 (see Q2.1) announcing this phenomenon. "Fusion related topics" have included research funding for hot & cold fusion, accurate calorimetry techniques, nuclear instrumentation, and the sociology of scientists' response to the cold-fusion work. Like any unmoderated newsgroup, we rely on your self-restraint to keep the "signal-to-noise ratio" high. Remember your netiquette. If you have been flamed, please consider whether (1) a private e-mail is appropriate, or (2) a response is really necessary at all. ------------------------------ Q2 What is ... "cold fusion" "Cold fusion" is used loosely. Most believe the phrase was first used to describe muon-catalysed fusion (see Q2.4), a "mainstream" physical phenomenon. However, it is now used almost universally to refer to phenomena related to the P&F work (Q2.1), in which they proposed D-D fusion as a probable mechanism. The P&F announcement stimulated a variety of experiments, some quite different from their own. Most, but not all, "cold fusion" research involves hydrogen isotopes in a metal lattice. It has proven impossible, to date, to formulate and test an adequate theoretical explanation for these anomalous experiments. Many workers (including P&F in 1993) are no longer committed to a nuclear fusion explanation, and prefer to discuss "anomolous heat". Nonetheless, the label "cold fusion" has stuck, whether or not fusion is involved. A substantial fraction of cold fusion experimentation is aimed at developing a commercially useful energy source. This is often envisioned at utility scale, using the cf-generated "excess heat" to drive a conventional steam turbine electrical generator. ------------------------------ Q2.1 ... Pons & Fleischmann (P&F) cold fusion? An electrolysis cell using Pd cathode, Pt anode, LiOD + D2O electrolyte. Thermal output in excess of electrical input is reported. High energy particles and nuclear products (e.g. 3H, 4He) are reported at low levels by some workers. Identifying characteristics of a "P&F-type" experiment: electrolysis in heavy water (D2O) Pd cathode calorimetry ------------------------------ Q2.2 ... Mills (light water) cold fusion? An electrolysis cell using Ni cathode, Pt anode, K2CO3 + H2O electrolyte. Thermal output in excess of electrical input is reported. Open cell (no recombiner for H2 +O2 inside calorimeter). Most workers report no detectable radiation or reaction products. Mills & Farrell propose a novel "shrunken Hydrogen" theory. Identifying characteristics of a "Mills-type" experiment: electrolysis in ordinary (light) water - H2O Ni cathode calorimetry Carbonate (CO3) in electrolyte ------------------------------ Q2.3 ... Jones (low level) cold fusion? Very-low-rate D-D fusion mediated by the solid lattice. Jones conjectures such events may occur in the earth's interior, and would explain certain anomalous volcanic gas measurements. Several experimental systems have been explored, including electrolytic cells similar to P&F design, portland cement, and gas-loaded Pd, all emphasizing neutron and X-ray instrumentation. Prof. Steve Jones, at BYU, was involved in the early P&F press-conference "fiasco", and often emphasizes the fact that his work (1) was independent of and predated P&F's, and (2) involves a low-rate phenomenon which could never explain the anomolous-heat-without-radiation results than most cf experimentalists report. ------------------------------ Q2.4 other types of cold fusion Gas-loading with Pd, Ti, Ni. Fractofusion Muon-catalyzed fusion (Insert jones' "MCF lives" posting here) Sonofusion ------------------------------ Q3 What is ... "hot fusion" ------------------------------ Q3.1 ... Tokamak ------------------------------ Q3.2 ... Inertial confinement ------------------------------ Q3.3 other types of hot fusion non-tokamak magnetic confinement electrostatic confinement plasmak ------------------------------ Q4 Glossary ------------------------------ Q5 How do I get info... ------------------------------ Q5.1 from the online Britz biblio? (insert Britz nodak.edu monthly note extract here) (insert Harrison sunsite monthly note extract here) ------------------------------ Q5.2 from the online s.p.f newsgroup archives? (insert Britz nodak.edu monthly note extract here) explain FUSION.XX-YYYYY numbering a little. (insert Harrison sunsite monthly note extract here) ------------------------------ Q5.3 from online archived documents? gopher to sunsite / archives / academic / physics / Cold-fusion anonymous ftp to sunsite.unc.edu pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion also in ...Cold-fusion/vince-cate (find out if CERN/WWW has good entries) ------------------------------ Q5.4 from print periodicals? peer-reviewed journals with hot & cold fusion info: Fusion Technology Il Nuovo Cimento peer-reviewed journals with hot fusion papers: peer-reviewed journals with cold fusion papers: Electrochimica Acta J Electronalytical Chemistry unreviewed periodicals, hot & cold: unreviewed periodicals, hot: unreviewed periodicals, cold: Fusion Facts Chemical & Engineering News ------------------------------ Q5.5 from books? (insert Britz book list) recommended hot-fusion/nuc physics texts: recommended electrochemistry texts: recommended calorimetry texts: ------------------------------ Q5.6 from other sources? Cold Fusion Research Advocates Jed Rothwell JET public info office (insert old posting here) ------------------------------ Q6 cold fusion status For the great majority of scientists, cold fusion is considered to be discredited. The positive experimental data are generally ascribed to poor experimental technique, as many laboratories have been unable to replicate P&F's reported results. A small number of observers believe that Pons and Fleischmann are involved in conscious fraud. In most countries (especially U.S. and Europe) cf research is discouraged. In Japan, some work is officially funded although there is also widespread scientific skepticism. Scientific opinion surrounding cf can be quite strong, with camps of "disbelievers", "skeptics", and "believers". The term "skeptic" is often appropriated to cover disbelievers and agnostics together. A surprising amount of vitriol appears in cold fusion debates. CF, as described by P&F, has great commerical potential; this has contributed to an attitude of secrecy surrounding several privately- funded research efforts. Experimental effort dropped off dramatically after the "gold rush" in 1989, but several laboratories continue work either formally or informally. Experimental results continue to be published, and the 4th ICCF (International Conference on Cold Fusion) is scheduled for December 1993. Most workers continue to find results which are irregular, and often irreproducible. Believers generally explain the erratic results as inadequate control of important but unkown experimental parameters (e.g. trace impurities, electrode surface condition, grain structure). Disbelievers generally explain the same results as flawed experimental design or execution. Almost all observers agree that there is no satisfactory theory to explain excess heat in cold fusion experiments. Theories presented to date are primarily "trial balloons", not fully developed. Most theories involve a strong interaction between the periodic lattice of the metal and the absorbed hydrogen. ------------------------------ Q6.1 What are the main arguments for cf? Experimental results. Highlights. ------------------------------ Q6.2 What are the main arguments against cf? No theory. No commensurate reaction products. No high-energy particles. Inconsistent experiments. ------------------------------ Q6.3 What research is currently in progress? P&F. EPRI. NTT. Jones. ------------------------------ Q7 hot fusion status ------------------------------ Q7.1 What are the main controversies in hf? Emphasis on Tokamak. "dirty" D-T cycle. Uncertainty of overcoming instabilities. ICF as bomb research. ------------------------------ Q7.2 What research is currently in progress? JET proposed big Tokamak ICF ------------------------------