Warming Up to Cold Fusion

The Washington Post ^ | Sharon Weinberger

[Arkie2]

On a quiet Monday in late August -- a time of year when much of the Washington bureaucracy has gone to the beach -- a panel of scientists gathered at a Doubletree Hotel set between the Congressional Plaza strip mall and a drab concrete office building on Rockville Pike. The panel's charge was simple: to determine whether that idea had even a prayer of a chance at working. The Department of Energy went to great lengths to cloak the meeting from public view. No announcement, no reporters. None of the names of the people attending that day was disclosed. The DOE made sure to inform the panel's members that they were to provide their conclusions individually rather than as a group, which under a loophole in federal law allowed the agency to close the meeting to the public.

At 9:30 a.m., six presenters were invited in and instructed to sit in a row of chairs along the wall. The group included a prominent MIT physicist, a Navy researcher and four other scientists from Russia, Italy and the United States. They had waited a long time for this opportunity and, one by one, stood up to speak about a scientific idea they had been pursuing for more than a decade.

All the secrecy likely had little to do with national security and more to do with avoiding possible embarrassment to the agency. To some, the meeting would seem no less outrageous than if the DOE honchos had convened for a seance to raise the dead -- and in a way, they had: Fifteen years ago, the DOE held a very similar review of the very same idea.

[Diogenesis]

Nonsense. You obviously have not investigated this at all.
Science and Nature DO NOT publish any of these studies.
Try reading what was called "Fusion Technology"
published by the American Nuclear Society.

[JasonC]

March 2002, Science 295. You are simply misinformed.

[RatRipper]

"singing frog"

LOL One of the greatest cartoon shorts ever made.

[Diogenesis]

Science 295, 1793 (2002); RP Taleyarkhan et al.,
Additional Evidence of Nuclear Emissions During Acoustic Cavitation

Bzzzzzzt. That is bubble fusion
and has nothing to do with what is reported in this thread.

The conclusion is that it appears YOU are misinformed
and ought to actually read the articles a bit more.

[JasonC]

See post 14. Certainly is part of the discussion in this thread. Is also a cold fusion claim. Is also transparently not supported by the reported raw data.

[Diogenesis]

Sorry, you are wrong again.
Post 14 is about catalysis as a possibility of explanation
and less relevant analogy to a "cancer cure".

To improve your accuracy (which is low),
you might try actually reading the original post of what this thread
is about if you have an iota of serious scientific interest.

[JasonC]

Sorry, it was 38, a reply to 14. I read the "reply to" field under the post as its number.

[Diogenesis]

#38 has some scientific errors such as the loading ratio
achievable, but even with that error, THAT post clearly distinguishes the acetone sound
system - which is not cold fusion, and the palladium D-loaded
system which was what the article original posted (#1) was about.

Get those back-issues of Fusion Technology
IF you really want serious articles and science.

[UseYourHead]

"singing frog" LOL One of the greatest cartoon shorts ever made.

One of my all-time favorites!

[syriacus]

Thanks for the explanation.

[dljordan]

It won't happen until the energy companies have wrung every cent out of the public they can get. My tinfoil feels very comfortable today.