US review rekindles cold fusion debate

[Dover]

US review rekindles cold fusion debate

Geoff Brumfiel

Energy panel split over whether experiments produced power.

Claims of cold fusion are intriguing, but not convincing. That is the conclusion of an 18-member scientific panel tasked with reviewing research in the area.

The findings, which were released on 1 December by the US Department of Energy, rekindle a 15-year-old debate over whether nuclear fusion can occur at room temperature.

According to the report, the panel was "split approximately evenly" on the question of whether cold experiments were actually producing power in the form of heat. But members agreed that there is not enough evidence to prove that cold fusion has occurred, and they complained that much of the published work was poorly documented.

The review is a positive step for the field of cold fusion, according to David Nagel at George Washington University in Washington DC, who co-authored the summary of cold-fusion work that the panel reviewed. "Most scientists think that cold fusion is laughable, but when the dust settled, the researchers reviewing our work were evenly split," he says.

Others remain sceptical, however. "It is astonishing that the panel didn't find cold fusion convincing after almost 15 years of additional research," says Bob Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland, College Park, and author of Voodoo Science, a book about junk science. Park says that although the quality of research has improved, no one should buy into cold fusion just yet...cont'd

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041129//full/041129-11.html

[Unstuck In Time]

1. But Bush is diverting funding for research into...

... faith-based fusion. :D

[MsConduct]

5. LOL n/t

[MsConduct]

2. Great article! Thanks for posting it. n/t

[phantom power]

3. The experiments of Pons and Fleischman never held up to

peer review. Nobody ever replicated their measurements of neutron production.

I'm a little amazed that there's still any serious debate about this.

[benburch]

4. Not quite true

Some people report results very similar to Pons and Fleischman!

But it seems that though sometimes reproducible, the effect is not actually repeatable. There is some variable in technique that is not pinned down yet.

But there are good scientists and dedicated amateurs who have produced a variety of anomalous results. What is certain here is that there is a physical effect that is not understood. What is NOT certain is that there is a nuclear reaction taking place.

I'm still open minded.

[phantom power]

6. True. But as you say, these results haven't been repeatable either.

My interpretation of all this is that cold-fusion has sort of taken on the status of something like anti-gravity.

There's always somebody claiming to have produced amazing results, but they always seem to happen when nobody else is watching.

Mind you, I'd love to be proven wrong! About either cold fusion, or antigravity.

The thing about things like cold fusion, or anti-gravity, is that it's really not kosher to claim that they are *impossible*. So, I can't exactly dismiss these people. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And so far, the evidence has been very dodgy.

[benburch]

7. Agreed.

But I'm going to keep watching, because you never know.

I wouldn't have bet on "Dark Energy" 20 years ago, either, but it appears to be a real thing.

[Justin54B20L]

8. I'd rather see a bigger foray into Zero Point Energy

technologies and research.