3 ms·

> 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...

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...