4 ms·

There is no wow factor at all. This was a case of notoriously difficult calorimetry measuring single digit wattage from a large device, under the control of Bri

There is no wow factor at all. This was a case of notoriously difficult calorimetry measuring single digit wattage from a large device, under the control of Brillouin engineers in their facility. Or rather, the wow factor is just how hard people here are biting on this, presumably out of nothing more than sheer desire for it to be real. Cold fusion (oh sorry, Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) research is a bad joke, unsupported by theory or practice.

miketery 9y ago
> Cold fusion (oh sorry, Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) research is a bad joke, unsupported by theory or practice. Is this really true?
- JimboOmega 9y ago
  After the huge scandal in the 80's, it's very much looked down on. It's worth noting that this "article" is a forum posting of what I think is a press release? That's not exactly reliable... On the original cold fusion, from wikipedia: Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[5] By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6][7] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science
- valarauca1 9y ago
  Yes. There are Low Energy Nuclear reactions that can occur but their often catalyzed by a muon which requires _a lot_ of energy to produce. There has been so little academic research (recently) because experimental evidence hasn't been found and the simple well understood math makes such a system impossible. Wikipedia notes this in their 3rd paragraph on the subject [1]. Cold Fusion, or low-energy nuclear reactions, or condensed matter nuclear science is so far behind the pale of serious physics you might as well start trying to jump into orbit with your own two legs, or invent perpetual energy. Lastly... Given how much the US and USSR spent on nuclear research in the cold war do you really think we missed a way making nuclear bombs smaller? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
  - tzs 9y ago
    By the early '90s, when most cold fusion as fusion had been pretty much debunked, there were some researchers with good reputations as careful, competent experimenters who were starting to get some interesting results--not necessarily fusion, of course, but they pointed to something interesting and not understood going on. But by that time, most people were no longer interested at looking at anything connected to cold fusion, so those interesting results weren't followed up on by others. David Goodstein wrote an interesting article about that shortly afterward, in 1993 [1]. https://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html https://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html
    - Erlangolem 9y ago
      Calorimetry is not perfect, and the “interesting” results have always been well within margins for error. https://sciencing.com/calorimeter-its-limitations-8290898.html https://sciencing.com/calorimeter-its-limitations-8290898.ht...
rdlecler1 9y ago
If you would have cut it at the second sentence you would have been upvoted. No need for the two sentences of negative sentiment.
King-Aaron 9y ago
> Cold fusion (oh sorry, Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) research is a bad joke, unsupported by theory or practice. I'm curious, as I only have a fairly shallow depth of knowledge on the subject, why there's been so many reports of large-scale Chinese (etc) investment in the field, if this is the case?
- rory096 9y ago
  There have been reports of supposed large-scale Chinese investments into EmDrive as well. It's probably one or a combination of "don't believe everything you hear" and poor funding allocation in a corrupt system.
- Erlangolem 9y ago
  The possible rewards often blind people to the implausibility of the claims made by cold fusion. Politicians and investors are rarely people with a deep knowledge of nuclear physics either, and time and again both are routinely swindled. Theranos is a fine example of how a lot of greed and ignorance parts fools from their money.

miketery 9y ago

> Cold fusion (oh sorry, Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) research is a bad joke, unsupported by theory or practice. Is this really true?

JimboOmega 9y ago
After the huge scandal in the 80's, it's very much looked down on. It's worth noting that this "article" is a forum posting of what I think is a press release? That's not exactly reliable... On the original cold fusion, from wikipedia: Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[5] By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6][7] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science
valarauca1 9y ago
Yes. There are Low Energy Nuclear reactions that can occur but their often catalyzed by a muon which requires _a lot_ of energy to produce. There has been so little academic research (recently) because experimental evidence hasn't been found and the simple well understood math makes such a system impossible. Wikipedia notes this in their 3rd paragraph on the subject [1]. Cold Fusion, or low-energy nuclear reactions, or condensed matter nuclear science is so far behind the pale of serious physics you might as well start trying to jump into orbit with your own two legs, or invent perpetual energy. Lastly... Given how much the US and USSR spent on nuclear research in the cold war do you really think we missed a way making nuclear bombs smaller? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
- tzs 9y ago
  By the early '90s, when most cold fusion as fusion had been pretty much debunked, there were some researchers with good reputations as careful, competent experimenters who were starting to get some interesting results--not necessarily fusion, of course, but they pointed to something interesting and not understood going on. But by that time, most people were no longer interested at looking at anything connected to cold fusion, so those interesting results weren't followed up on by others. David Goodstein wrote an interesting article about that shortly afterward, in 1993 [1]. https://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html https://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html
  - Erlangolem 9y ago
    Calorimetry is not perfect, and the “interesting” results have always been well within margins for error. https://sciencing.com/calorimeter-its-limitations-8290898.html https://sciencing.com/calorimeter-its-limitations-8290898.ht...

rdlecler1 9y ago

If you would have cut it at the second sentence you would have been upvoted. No need for the two sentences of negative sentiment.

King-Aaron 9y ago

> Cold fusion (oh sorry, Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) research is a bad joke, unsupported by theory or practice. I'm curious, as I only have a fairly shallow depth of knowledge on the subject, why there's been so many reports of large-scale Chinese (etc) investment in the field, if this is the case?

rory096 9y ago
There have been reports of supposed large-scale Chinese investments into EmDrive as well. It's probably one or a combination of "don't believe everything you hear" and poor funding allocation in a corrupt system.
Erlangolem 9y ago
The possible rewards often blind people to the implausibility of the claims made by cold fusion. Politicians and investors are rarely people with a deep knowledge of nuclear physics either, and time and again both are routinely swindled. Theranos is a fine example of how a lot of greed and ignorance parts fools from their money.