

Is Cold Fusion Finally Being Accepted by Scientists? - andykaufman
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48615362

======
Steuard
No. (That was easy.)

I'll happily take that back if someone can point to mainstream peer-reviewed
publications by at least two independent research groups claiming success with
the same approach (or even just closely related approaches). But this article
just claims there have been "recent LENR demonstrations at reputable
institutions such as MIT, the University of Missouri, and the University of
Bologna", without any details and without comment on how those supposed
demonstrations were received.

What in this article merits any attention at all?

~~~
andreaja
As per Betteridge's Law of Headlines[1], "No" is indeed the correct tl;dr for
this article.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines>

------
lutusp
Who fact checks these articles?

A quote: "Back in 1989 two of the greatest electrochemists in the world,
Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, made a remarkable announcement". Pons and
Fleischmann never had that reputation before the cold fusion brouhaha, and
certainly not afterward, to some extent because of how they mishandled the
issue (failing to publish their methods in detail and other problems).

" ... no reputable scientists were willing to risk their reputations by
pursuing a science that many considered equal to alchemy." This isn't true --
many qualified people performed experiments sufficient to show that there was
no there there. Cold Fusion is a dormant field for an excellent reason, and
the tendentious tone of the article -- that it's all a conspiracy against a
legitimate field -- contradicts the facts.

"However, following recent LENR [low energy nuclear reactions] demonstrations
at reputable institutions such as MIT, the University of Missouri, and the
University of Bologna, ..." Demonstrations? No. Heat generation? Yes. Measured
neutron flux (an essential component of evidence for cold fusion)? Zero.

How did this article get out of the tinfoil-hat press and into the mainstream
press (assuming CNBC has that reputation)?

------
simonster
David Goodstein (physics professor at Caltech) wrote this fascinating article
in 1994: <http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html>. I'm not sure the
status of cold fusion research hasn't changed much since then.

The major problem of "cold fusion" seems not to be that it the findings aren't
reproducible (at this point, they have been reported by several labs), but
that they aren't consistently reproducible even with the same apparatus.
Without knowing which factors determine whether or not excess heat or neutrons
are observed in a cold fusion cell, it's impossible to know whether the
observed positive results represent mistakes, methodological errors, or
bonafide (albeit intermittent) nuclear fusion.

------
jayfuerstenberg
This is such a non-article.

The optimist in me would like to see cold fusion demonstrated but this article
didn't even elaborate on the work MIT is doing and just cites investments as
proof that there is some progress being made on this front.

------
tacoboye
Adobe joke goes here.

------
shousper
Hmm, interesting that you guys are all about facts and convey that without a
shred of optimism.

Regardless of the source or accuracy of the article, would it not be awesome
if the answer was yes?

~~~
dandrews
There was a lot of optimism, 20+ years ago. Read up some. If you have _lots_
of time on your hands, peruse the early sci.physics.fusion archives.

------
mchahn
Every time a headline ends with a question mark, the answer is NO. (Sorry, I
can't remember the sourcce for this quote).

------
googoobaby
No - note the article isn't actually a CNBC story but is syndicated from some
5th rate website.

