A lot of things don't make sense. There was a rush to begin with, but the reaction was hard to replicate. The first transistors were hard to replicate as well. A lot of institutions couldn't replicate it, so they claimed cold fusion is impossible. It has been an uphill battle ever since. The replication rate now is a lot higher than it was back then.
Wrong. I looked at it, found it to be pathetic. I even told you why. None published in reputable journals. What they are are mostly nothing more than papers at conferences and meetings. Not even peer reviewed. Others are nothing to do with cold fusion. Sorry you have not provided any evidence of cold fusion. Not interested in if it is in theory possible. Just has it been done? Answer - No. If there was evidence then there would be a huge rush to duplicate and build on the results.
Many were peer reviewed in the journal of electroanalytical chemistry. They have different names than cold fusion, but they are all describing similar effects. One is Low energy nuclear reactions. If they say something about nickel, copper, helium production, hydrogen, deuterium, anomalous heat production, surface plasmitons, or palladium, it probably deals with cold fusion. Like I said, there was a huge rush to duplicate the results, but it proved hard to replicate. The replication rate is much higher now.
I'd rather get a time machine. Then I could just get the F*** outta here. Go back to that 'simpler place and time'.
Just had a look at the papers published in that journal. Most are old. Only 14 published in or after 1998. That is in the last 14 years. Most were not about producing "excess heat" or anything related. Then I looked at the impact factor for that journal. 2.732 or 2.668. Hardly the journal that should be used for something that might produce a world changing event. The link below gives impact factors for other Chemistry journals. Three of them have an impact factor of more than 20. http://bismar.blogspot.com/2011/05/chemistry-journals-impact-factor-in.html
Actually we have. It was achieved in the 1980s. We have yet to get usable energy out of fusion, though. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cen-v061n046.p008 Reading the other thread were you claim scientific progress is not moving forward--I think it's because you aren't up on it.
But there is a difference, and if you knew that, why didn't you state usable energy, instead of just energy?
They can produce useful amounts in bursts, but the net gain goes down. The highest gain for usable energy was .6 at JNL. That is what I meant when I said that it doesn't produce a net gain of energy. Sorry, I guess I was just in a hurry when I wrote it, but I did know that nuclear fusion did produce a net gain on a low scale. That was also 40 years after fusion was discovered that it produced a net gain.
in fact it was impossible to replicate by those who were getting hot fusion government grants had to wait for india and the russians and literally the whole of the rest of the world to do it before they amazingly got it to work! regards, MIT
Defkalion, a company which kind of came from Rossi, is supposedly conducting an independent test tomorrow, and the test will run for a few days. Hopefully this is the breakthrough cold fusion needs to make it an established science.
