It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Scientists Shed New Light on Cold Fusion

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 12:27 AM

Researchers at a meeting of the American Chemical Society in Chicago this week said the phenomenon now known as low energy nuclear reaction, is supportable by "rigorous, repeatable experimental data," the ACS said in a release.
Nearly a dozen scientists presented their findings at Thursday's meeting.

When the concept of cold fusion was introduced in 1989 it was hailed as a "scientific breakthrough with the potential to solve the world's energy problems by providing a virtually unlimited energy source," the ACS said.
Subsequent experiments, however, largely failed to replicate the initial findings.

One of the original scientists behind the concept reported new evidence Thursday that the excess heat generated by cold fusion is nuclear and not the result of calorimetric errors.


This is interesting, I'm not going to get overly excited about the thought
of Cold Fusion becoming possible, at least not in the near future.

Comments, Opinions?

posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 12:35 AM
Vindication for nonmainstream scientists everywhere! Take that, asshole skeptics!

posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 12:38 AM

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Vindication for nonmainstream scientists everywhere! Take that, asshole skeptics!

This is not saying that Cold fusion is possible, rather the process it
was originally based on is being looked at again.

Being skeptical about something is not bad, if there were no skeptics
we'd live in a world where, well it would not be a very good place to live.

[edit on 4/3/2007 by iori_komei]

posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 12:42 AM
Agreed, but there are honest skeptics and then there are asshole skeptics who wouldn't believe in an ET if one shook their hand. Honest questioning vs. pathological bitterness that can't discover anything so it must try to destroy something that someone else has discovered.

posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 01:03 AM
What exactly was found?

posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 08:51 AM
I recently posted a thread on this subject with a couple of great videos that give a good history and details of the blatant corrupting of data (mainly MIT) and personal attacks on Fleischmann and pons by the scientific community. The second video details some of the more recent experiments undertaken.

Thanks for the news, Just think one drop of heavy water = 48 gallons of gasoline!
By the way the research has been continuing since 89, Although only by relatively few, so It's not really a rebirth of the idea.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by squiz]

posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 10:34 AM
You know that there just had to be something about this that was true.

I'm not getting excited until I can purchase my Mr Fusion home energy supply.

Thanks for the update.

posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 09:51 PM
While some people doubted that fusion was taking place, more people objected to the idea that this was energy positive. A lot of the skeptical articles I've read over the years have stated as much.

posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 11:25 PM
Very interesting!

Did anyone notice this comment posted on the page which the OP posted a link to ?

Contrary to most of the existing “cold fusion” scientists, we believe that certain well-established anomalous experimental results (e.g. He-4 production, excess heat, transmutations) that have frequently been reported by researchers in the field since 1989 are best explained by invoking the weak interaction, not strong interaction fusion or fission. Our theoretical model of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is outlined in four readily available papers listed below. No “new physics” is involved, merely an extension of collective effects to electroweak theory within the context of the Standard Model. Thus, the phenomenon is not “cold fusion” and never was.
L. Larsen, Lattice Energy LLC and Prof. A. Widom, Dept. of Physics, Northeastern University

See original link for full text

Further efforts to try and discredit, or valid?

new topics

top topics


log in