[r9etb]

Has something changed since 1989?

As the fellow says, work has been going on since then, and there have supposedly been some advances and some fruitful basic research by real scientists.

It's difficult to separate fact from fiction, however, because of the tremendously political charge surrounding the topic, and the very high threshold set up by the apparent falsity of Pons and Fleischman's claims.

The problem is made worse by the close association between cold fusion and the perpetual motion/500 mpg carburetor crowd.

[ggekko]

To the best of your knowledge, has a theoretical interpretation of physics or maybe quantum chemistry been posited by some of the new researchers that would provide a basis for believing that Cold Fusion could work?

[JedRothwell]

r9etb writes:

"It's difficult to separate fact from fiction, however, because of the tremendously political charge surrounding the topic . . ."

I do not see why this presents a problem. I recommend you read original source papers published in peer reviewed journals and proceedings. They are not affected by the politics you refer you. Politics do influence accounts of cold fusion published in newspapers, magazines and Internet discussion groups, but these are not good sources of information on any scientific or technical subject.


". . . and the very high threshold set up by the apparent falsity of Pons and Fleischman's claims."

In my opinion they were not false, since they were widely replicated at high s/n ratios.


"The problem is made worse by the close association between cold fusion and the perpetual motion/500 mpg carburetor crowd.”

Where does this close association occur? In a publication? In the opinions of many people? If so, I suggest these people have not reviewed the actual experimental literature in detail. Cold fusion researchers mainly work at places such as Los Alamos, China Lake, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industry. These institutions are not noted for supporting or publishing perpetual motion or 500 mpg carburetor claims.

- Jed