Cold Fusion: Were Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons Right After All?

Well, let's just see how this plays out when other labs go to replicate this.

The low neutron count is a little curious, but I'll reserve judgement until the rest of teh world has a chance to review this.

The article doesn't make clear whether the work is being done by the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center or in a private capacity by some people who happen to work there. I'd guess the latter.

As much as I'd like to see another revolution in physics I doubt it's happening here.

Would be nice if it is possible. A fussion reactor would be preferable to a Nuclear reactor

Neutrons are always neutrons. Fusion reaction is a "nuclear reaction" as fission is.

Damage due to neutrons is independent if they are produced in a beaker or in a reactor. Many stable atoms may take a neutron and became a radioactive different atom.

It's just a question of magnitude order.

Kind regards.

so which one is more safer then? A fusion reactor is easier to shutdown IMO, then a Nuclear reactor, and how much radioactive material does a fusion reactor produce opposed to a nuclear reactor? (hypothetical speaking)

If you can tell us the way to stop the sun....

Well, I'll allow any other star. (Hypothetically speaking)

Kind regards

Uhm in a reactor close the Hydrogen faucet?

Cold fusion research has been occurring with success for the last twenty years around the world. Several prominent labs (government, university and private) have generated watts to kilowatts of power from the specially doped electrodes.

The stigma attached to cold fusion matters in any form seem to stem from the way Pons and Fleischmann staged their media announcement rather than through the normal peer-reviewed process. Their experiment had errors to be sure but they were basically correct in their discovery.

A good source of historical research info is at Cold Fusion Times, http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html.

Did not read the link, but 20 years is a long time and nothing practical has hit the shelves or been commercially put into service. That's the real proof.

I have to disagree with your semantics: real proof versus real benefit.

If it is the former, the same could then be said for hot fusion and the Tokamak reactor which was started around 1978.

Both fusion types are real but commercialization of usable power from both is still elusive.

If I were to be a betting man I probably would put my money on anything but cold fusion. I could be wrong, but one of my thesis in college was on cold fusion, so I am not totally uninformed on the subject. However, I have not kept pace with anything on the subject for years now. I understand that research has continued into the subject, but to date there has been little to even demonstrate that the process is concretely nuclear.

The demonstration of neutrons in this latest report has been the most significant development to date. I caution that this has not yet been peer reviewed, so I am not going to get excited until more information surfaces that demonstrates that it can be easily replicated by independent labs and the underlying process is explained. So, the jury is still out if there is anything real about cold fusion.

I'll take that bet! ;)

You are on. ;-)