Science Comment - Advance Science

Comment thread

Reply to comment

This is a comment on: Rafelski, J.; Jones, S.E. Cold Nuclear fusion Scientific American 1987 page 84

Cold nuclear fusion is dead   published on Monday, 09-Apr-12 21:06:02 CEST by phiny

By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6][7] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.[8][9] In 1989, a review panel organized by the US Department of Energy (DOE) found that the evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process was not persuasive enough to start a special program, but was "sympathetic toward modest support" for experiments "within the present funding system." A second DOE review, convened in 2004 to look at new research, reached conclusions similar to the first.[10]

Some people believe ...   published on Monday, 09-Apr-12 21:09:18 CEST by phiny

A small community[quantify] of researchers continues to investigate cold fusion,[6][11] now often preferring the designation low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR).[12][13] They have reported that, "under certain extreme conditions", they observe excess heat effects by interaction of hydrogen or deuterium with palladium, nickel or platinum. However, they cannot explain these observations and have not demonstrated reliable replication of the effects.[14] Since cold fusion articles are rarely published in refereed scientific journals, the results do not receive as much scrutiny as more mainstream topics,[15] and many scientists are not even aware that there is ongoing research.[16]

Page 3 of 3
1 2 3 next >

Reply to comment

Science Comment - Add your comment

Latest News

  • Use the power of ScienceComment and add your comment now!
    (2012-04-09 19:31:36)
  • Search function now working. You can search for keywords, doi and articles now. Test it!
    (2012-04-09 19:30:51)
  • List of journals has 4617 entries.
  • Now 31 comments online.