It was a one hit wonder. No one has been able to reproduce the result after the first discovery and everyone is still wondering how it happened in the first place. It failed the reproducible criteria of science. Anyone who is able to reproduce the phenomenon reliably even if it is not cold fusion would probably get an award.

Any kind of known nuclear reaction will produce some kind of ionizing radiation. There's nothing pollution free about it.

If there's radioactive waste, how can it be pollution free?

If no one has solved it, where the science?

The title of this thread does not match the content within.

It is not science. No one has been able to reproduce the result reliably or explained what has happened.

Neutrons releases were supposedly detected in the original experiment so you will probably end up with irradiated material.

From the same link above:

That is actually good advice. Don't make a claim until you can find out about it in detail. Until it is proven to be cold fusion, don't call it that.

This post has been edited by Eventless: Apr 9 2012, 11:27 PM

You are misunderstanding what I'm trying to say in my last post. Unless someone can explain how the heat is produced, don't simply label it as cold fusion. It could have another explanation which is not related to fusion.

If you are refering to e-cat, that has nothing to do with the people receiving the money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
If you are talking about something else, please specify. No one can read your mind.

The only person misleading here is you. The purpose of science is to understand things. No one except the creator of e-cat has been allowed access to the device. Until multiple parties can explain how this thing works, it is not science.

The design of the original cold fusion experiment and e-cat is not the same. The people in your article is using the same method as the original experiment. Reproducing the experiment is one of the steps getting it recognized as a legitimate phenomenon. Understanding what is happening is another. The understanding part is still missing. If you don't understand how it works, how can you claim it is cold fusion or any type of fusion?

Your are still being misleading. Let me repeat again. The people doing research on this phenomenon is the University Of Missouri which received the millions in donation. The people who are working on e-cat is an Italian group. You are treating the people who are doing the cold fusion research as being the same group that is working e-cat. This is not right.

---

Added on April 10, 2012, 4:36 pmHow can e-cat's claim be reproduced and tested when no one else but the creator of the device has access to it?

This post has been edited by Eventless: Apr 10 2012, 04:36 PM

Let me repeat it again, the Italian group is not allowing anyone to study their device. How can anyone review it if they won't give access other people?

How would you know they are similar? Have you examined it in detail? Don't make claims that you cannot prove. Just because both devices produce heat does not mean they are the same. So if a car engine produces heat then it must be a cold fusion device?

You've managed to contradict yourself in the same post. Did you even read the content of your own post? Look at the bold part where it says make available for independent testing in the future. In another word, no one else has been allowed access to it.

---

Added on April 12, 2012, 11:32 pmFor some reason, I can't find any information of the above event in any scientific journal. Maybe you can provide a link to one?

This post has been edited by Eventless: Apr 12 2012, 11:32 PM

They are both not independently tested yet. You have not proven that they have. Until the independent reports comes out on these devices, it will remain so.