Nope, don't know anything but did hear the experiments were being redone with better results.

Cold fusion has never been proven to work. While occasionally researchers obtain results suggesting that it does work, most of the time, the results indicate that it doesn't.

Don't listen to conspiracy theorists: they are scammers out to swindle people by propagating lies. If cold fusion really does work, and consistent results can be obtained, everyone will be falling over themselves to be the first to install such a system. It is this desire for clean, safe, affordable energy that the conspiracy theorists prey upon.

The problem is that it takes a great deal of energy to produce one spark. Then there is the problem of harnessing the energy produced by that spark.

That is why it has not been researched all that much lately and is the reason why it isn't considered a viable alternate energy source.

Maybe someday they will be able to develop it into something useful but for right now there's not much to work with. They know about as much about cold fusion now as they did when it was discovered.

I did some reading up on Cold Fusion as a project for my Natural Science class for college looking for alternate power sources. There wasn't very much in new material about it to read up on. It was all old material.

Possible but not commercially/industrially viable, it would seem.

Kind of like the reason electric cars never get mass produced: because there is perpetually promise on the horizon that will make all existing technologies obsolete that nobody wants to invest.

Maybe once someone can make an aparatus that can, at the very least, capture enough energy to keep the spark alive...then they could optimise and tweak to not lose so much to heat. Hey...starting to sound like an internal combustion engine! Lots of power generate but most of it lost and never usable... In the meantime perhaps the heat can be used to generate heat and spin a turbine. Best wishes to whoever is working on such a thing.

Kindest regards.

I watched on the computer 45 minutes of this show. In its style it mimics those sorts of shows about UFOs, and visitors from outer space.

All end: "What do you think?"

I have no first hand experience with visitors from outer space, nor with cold fusion.

To better get a base, I would need to know of experiments that had comparable failures, but came to maturity accounting for delicate procedures.

"You gottah hold your mouth just right."

Thanks everyone. While it was an interesting vid' it reminded me a bit too much of certain environmental videos of late that 'artistically' clip out hunks of interviews with qualified individuals (skewing their opinion in the process) and claiming they had scientists supporting their cause.

Well, until real proof arrives in a scalable and reproducable manner I think this case remains closed.

Don't worry. The secret projects done under extremely high security are the stuff of fantasy. While "public" science works on one level, "secret" science works in the dark and on another level.

Cold fusion does not, and will not, exist. It violates the fundamental first law of thermodynamics - the change in internal energy is equal to the heat addition minus the work done by the system; energy is conserved. Every single equation can be traced back to the first law bookkeeping equation, and if cold fusion were possible, then every single equation would be held under question. If the first law was subject to change, it would have terms added to it that can be modified, much like the RANS equations. The RANS equations has an extra term that has several different models, depending on the boundary conditions and coefficients that determine the turbulent flow. The first law, on the other hand, is a strict equation: du = Q-W. This cannot be changed, and thus, cold fusion will not happen.

Hi kk,

"Please, let's not make it a flaming argument"

You're asking the impossible. This is a hot topic. Never mind that it has had cold water poured all over it. Your video makes it quite clear that it does work, and also makes it very clear why it is being put down by the "establishment". Those scientists didn't follow "due process", and made some mistakes too. Follow the money. The big money is in 'hot-fusion' so everything that can be done to discredit this discovery has been and will be done. The same phenomena is happening for the global warming scam. Nobody has any scruples anymore. Roger Pink should watch that video so that he can understand why consensus is a joke in the scientific-political world. Thanks so much for posting it.

Regards,

-S

There are 4 or 5 known areas of cold fusion experiments. But the holy grail of them all is the simple change of dimensions creating cold fusion ! It was just that simple ! JH

I am again going to ask for Jorrie to take a look at this thread.

I think it's outside of Jorrie's expertise. Europium might be a better choice, or Physicist?

Between the three we may get a judgement worth carrying around.

Hi T. Unfortunately I have no nuclear physics knowledge, as S suggested above, but I'm skeptical.

On the other hand, I would love to hear that some repeatable cold fusion process has been found, especially if it is "clean energy"!

-J

The video was interesting, but unfortunately the conclusion it was aiming towards was obvious from the start.

If the evidence the video stated was available, why hasn't the continued research since then produced at least an operating pilot plant?

The experimental work involved seems to be well within the small budget abilities of most universities, and the French have continued research in the area, apparently without concrete results.

The field is dogged by inconsistent results and non-repeatable experiments, although some of this seems inherent in most work on electro chemistry.

If the anomalous results are due to energy stored by days of electricity being run into the apparatus (as some have claimed) then research is needed in how such quantities of energy could be stored and what triggers it's release.

If nuclear reactions are actually occurring, then theory and research should be undertaken as to why the expected particles aren't being consistently emitted. What causes an apparently different nuclear pathway to be followed, or could it happen?

I don't know the answer to any of this, but am dubious about the proposition that nuclear reaction pathways need re writing.

I am also dubious that genuine nuclear reactions are occurring, but these erratic, anomalous results need explanation. So far, no satisfactory explanation seems to be forthcoming.