Cold Fusion 2: Electric Boogaloo

[Tuckerfan]

It’s baaaaaaaack! Cold fusion’s got a new name and a new attitude!

“Although ‘cold fusion’ is considered controversial, the scientific process demands of us to keep an open mind and examine the new results once every few years,” says Gopal Coimbatore, Ph.D., of Texas Tech University, program chair of the American Chemical Society’s Division of Environmental Chemistry.

Now, some researchers say they have new evidence that the phenomena – now called ‘low energy nuclear reactions’ – has evolved and is supported by rigorous, repeatable experimental data.

Wonder what the evidence is?

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

‘Cold Fusion’ Rebirth? Symposium Explores Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

Hrmph.

“Symposia” are a dime a dozen–show me da patent!

[Nanoda]

@Tuckerfan

Wonder what the evidence is?

Flimsy? Obtuse? Not based on reality?

[ZipperJJ]

Man, I’m so glad you didn’t mean the dynamic Web programming package.

That thing is a pain in the ass.

[Malodorous]

Heh, one of the experiments in the article are from the same Fleischmann as the debunked Flesichmann and Pons experiment.

Gotta admit the guys eternally hopeful.

[Chasing_Dreams]

I firmly believe in cold fusion. And no, I’m not a quack. There are too many cold fusion type experiments where the scientists have observed excess heat that cannot be explained by traditional chemical, physical, or nuclear means.

The wikipedia article on cold fusion gives a good overview of what cold fusion is and what is happening in the field.

It is not just a few quack scientists who are purporting energy generation. Even the Navy lends some support.

Just because we don’t understand the whole picture of what is happening doesn’t mean that cold fusion cannot exist. There’s no fundamental law that says cold fusion cannot occur.

Look at the hundreds of billions spent on constructing hot fusion reactors. We still don’t have a working one that can supply society with any decent amount of energy. If we believe that hot fusion can work and spent all this money for impractical prototypes, then why not believe in cold fusion and invest a couple of billion to find out exactly what is going on?

[Nanoda]

@Chasing Dreams

why not believe in cold fusion and invest a couple of billion to find out exactly what is going on?

It was “invested”. Back when Flesichmann & Pons first broke the “news” about their “breakthrough”. Thousands of the planet’s most brilliant physicists (theoretical and experimental) gave it a shot. My power still comes from EPCOR, not a Tupperware tub in the basement.

Try reading Carl Sagan’s excellent “Demon Haunted World”. You’ll be glad you did.

[Chasing_Dreams]

@Nanoda

It was “invested”. Back when Flesichmann & Pons first broke the “news” about their “breakthrough”. Thousands of the planet’s most brilliant physicists (theoretical and experimental) gave it a shot. My power still comes from EPCOR, not a Tupperware tub in the basement.

They gave it a shot but I don’t believe anyone had billion dollar backing that top hot fusion scientists have.

The results from cold fusion research so far indicates that something is going on in the experiments that no one has been able to explain with conventional physics. This warrants investment to find out what mechanism is causing the net production of energy in cold fusion devices. Otherwise, if you cannot explain the anomalies seen in these straight forward cold fusion devices, how can you trust calorimetry or even basic chemistry?