Replies

The key question is why was the data buried/ignored "for 20+ years". Note that in the study, the authors suggest a VERY innovative and simple approach to using their discovery to generate power. Yet that was not followed up on.

Well, what does that tell any reasonably sane person who doesn't resort to conspiracy theories? It says there's nothing there.

Fusion as a phenomenon by itself is no big deal. High school students have achieved it in their garages. Hot fusion gets attention because it's useful in addition to being supported by accepted theory. Hot fusion is used for weapons, and it's a natural process relevant to astrophysics and cosmology. So it should be no surprise to a rational person that hot fusion gets the most attention.

Then there is muon catalyzed cold fusion. It was predicted by theory before it was observed in nature and reproduced by experiments. However, muon fusion doesn't come close to producing as much energy as what goes into it. It's not as useful to physics as hot fusion, so once again, a rational person isn't surprised that it gets little attention.

Then there is all other claimed types of cold fusion (or LENR, or LANR, which are no more than the Shakespearean renamings of a stink bug). Cold fusion has no accepted theory that can withstand scrutiny. Even if the claimed anomalies are real, they are unpredictable, and thus not useful for commerce or any significant portion of science. We should see very few mentions of cold fusion compared to hot fusion. Yet on FR, thanks to the nutbag section (you and Kevmo) we see hundreds if not thousands of such postings. It makes conservatives look out of touch with reality and untrustworthy.

If there is one use for cold fusion, it is to provide a core for a mutual admiration society of washed up scientists, scammers, and crackpot wannabe victims who like to blame a conspiracies for their failures.

"Cold fusion has no accepted theory that can withstand scrutiny. Even if the claimed anomalies are real, they are unpredictable, and thus not useful for commerce or any significant portion of science.

I say again. Theory is irrelevant to the scientific validity of cold fusion. The ONLY necessary criterion is replicable data, which despite your assertions, IS available.

"We should see very few mentions of cold fusion compared to hot fusion. Yet on FR, thanks to the nutbag section (you and Kevmo) we see hundreds if not thousands of such postings. It makes conservatives look out of touch with reality and untrustworthy.

Perhaps there are so few mentions of hot fusion because it has been promising results for fifty years and not delivered. Kevmo and I happen to be interest in cold fusion. I'm also interested in and follow hot fusion as well....Bussard's legacy Polywell and Focus Fusion have some very promising possibilities. If you want articles on hot fusion...post'em. I suggest in future you simply ignore threads on cold fusion. We'd all be a lot happier.