Skip to main content
Menu

General Scientific News

Google Investigates Cold Fusion

This unusual article recently appeared in Nature: a team funded by Google (and involving researchers from a number of very well-respected research institutions) has spent some substantial effort revisiting the various reports of “cold fusion” (commentary pieces here and here). That might seem like an odd way to spend one’s money and time, but I was actually pleased to hear about the work. As I’ve mentioned here before, I vividly remember the announcement by Pons and Fleischmann in 1989 – I was amazed and elated, and bitterly disappointed when the work failed to replicate over the following months. I agree with the people at Google that the potential rewards (scientific and economic, etc.) of replicating something real in this area are so huge that it was worth another rigorous follow-up. They knew full well that it might end by finding nothing.

That’s what they found. None of the major experimental conditions that have been reported to produce anomalous nuclear reactions could be replicated in the hands of this team: metal electrodes loaded with large amounts of hydrogen, metal powders heated in a hydrogen atmosphere, and pulsed plasma discharge conditions. It’s not like they got to all of the reported experiments, but they did a thorough job of investigating these ones that had produced the most hints of something, and, well, there was nothing there. Here are the authors:

So far, we have found no evidence of anomalous effects claimed by proponents of cold fusion that cannot otherwise be explained prosaically. However, our work illuminates the difficulties of producing the conditions under which cold fusion is hypothesized to exist. This result leaves open the possibility that the debunking of cold fusion in 1989 was perhaps premature because the relevant physical and material conditions had not (and indeed have not yet) been credibly realized and thoroughly investigated. Should the phenomenon happen to be real (itself an open question), there may be good technical reasons why proponents of cold fusion have struggled to detect anomalous effects reliably and reproducibly. Continued scepticism of cold fusion is justified, but we contend that additional investigation of the relevant conditions is required before the phenomenon can be ruled out entirely.

There’s a danger in thinking like this, though, because you run the risk of assuming the conclusions. If the conditions for these phenomena are so difficult to achieve, what are the odds that Pons and Fleischmann themselves achieved them? One of the reasons the work made such headlines was the simplicity of the experimental apparatus. The earlier failures to reproduce things, along with scattered reports of partial or intermittent effects, showed pretty quickly that even if there was something going on, it was clearly not as simple as it had first appeared. Now with this latest investigation, we can turn the “clearly not as simple” dial even further up than ever before. You can chase anything, forever, if you’re willing to keep thinking that the negative results mean that it’s just getting trickier. And the question is, at what point do you stop staying “Well, if it’s there, it’s really complicated” and start saying “Actually, if it’s that complicated it might as well not be there at all”.

Most researchers in this field reached that point some time ago, and this new paper will make it easier than ever to write the whole thing off. But the Google team still has some experiments that they’re apparently conducting, especially in the plasma-discharge area, mostly to work out some unexplored parameter space with relevance to more conventionally explicable low-energy nuclear reactions whose rates are expected to be heavily modified by screening effects. This work should produce data that will be of interest to people beyond the remaining cold-fusion believers, and similarly, the team’s work on heated metal powders and hydrogen required them to make advances in calorimetry that could also prove useful. And the hydrogen-saturated palladium electrode work led to new data about the effects of such high loading on the metal structure, and how to measure these reliably.

So they’ve produced useful work – just no cold-fusion breakthroughs. If anyone is going to claim one after this, they’ll have to explain how it lies outside this space that has (from what I can see) been pretty well tamed by the Google team – and it had better be good. I’m not expecting one. It’s now been just over 30 years since Pons and Fleischmann, and I think that this particular dream is pretty well laid to rest. Personally, though, I’ll never forget those first few weeks in the spring of 1989, when it looked like the world had suddenly reordered itself and physics had turned upside down. The good news, though, is that such discoveries do happen from time to time, in physics and in other fields of science as well, and they still can. Live in hope.

63 comments on “Google Investigates Cold Fusion”

  1. Bagger Vance says:

    “You can chase anything, forever, if you’re willing to keep thinking that the negative results mean that it’s just getting trickier. ”

    This would certainly seem to have broader implications. I wonder what the budget for CERN last year was? At least this study was produced quickly and relatively cheaply.

  2. electrochemist says:

    For anyone who hasn’t seen it, the 2012 documentary “The Believers” is worth the time.
    [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2265577/mediaviewer/rm2035159808]

    I know a few of the people interviewed in the film (other than Pons and Fleischmann, neither of whom I ever met personally). I came away from watching it just feeling sorry for Stan Pons. I don’t view him as a victim, but he certainly paid a hefty price for the consequences of what happened, more of which arguably should have been shouldered by Fleischmann.

  3. mallam says:

    Alphabet has way too much money.

    1. Nick K says:

      If they continue on this path, probably not for much longer.

  4. John Wayne says:

    This is pretty cool; kudos to Google for taking their insane amount of capitol and looking at some high risk, high reward projects.

    At best, they could hit something important out of the park. At worst, they may convince others to not waste their time on dead horses.

    1. anon says:

      People who didn’t already think that cold fusion is dead will not change their mind because of this. If anything, they’re encouraged.

  5. Kenrod says:

    Maybe next Google can take a look at Randell Mills, Brilliant Light Power, and hydrinos.

    1. Dan says:

      Boom! Thank you so much… Thought I would be the only one to say it!
      NOT NUCLEAR! NOT FUSION!… A chemical reaction taking place. A catalyst reaction in which the hydrogen atom CAN and DOES fall into a lower state of orbit (NOTHING in physics says that it can’t)… When it does an extraordinary amount of energy is released (Hydrino… I.e. dark matter)… The Grand Unified Theory Of Classical Physics!

      1. David says:

        It would make sense if the most abundant form of matter in the universe (dark matter) was the ash of the second most abundant form of matter in the universe (hydrogen).

  6. Anonymous Researcher snaw says:

    My basic take on all the ideas for Fusion Power remains what my late dissertation adviser said when the Pons and Fleischmann paper first came out: “while the probability of this being true may be quite low, when multiplied by its value if true the resulting probability-discounted value is still high enough to justify a fairly substantial investment in trying to confirm the finding.”

    1. azetidine says:

      No it doesn’t, because the probability is zero.

    2. eub says:

      i.e. Pascal’s Wager

  7. Anonymous Researcher snaw says:

    In one of Heinlein’s novels The Long Range Foundation (LRF) was described as a nonprofit outfit that funded expensive, low-probability-of-success, long-term projects that would be of great value for humanity if they succeeded. In the current era, most nonprofits seem insufficiently imaginative. So if Google wants to spend some of its cash pile on such things, great.

    1. NJBiologist says:

      Kinda sounds like DARPA….

      1. enl says:

        More like what the Templeton foundation would like people to believe it is. (I chose my words carefully)

  8. Emjeff says:

    I’d like them to investigate whether magical fairies exist next. It would be about as productive as this.

  9. AlloG says:

    Yo! Sergey! What did you ever do with that Reich Orgone mashine my Nana saved from the FDA?
    It s got some good miles on it and I bet you guys use it all the time at those Con’ valley research parties where u all wear Big Cat masks and dats all.

  10. dearieme says:

    “Pons and Fleischmann in 1989”: everyone knows that fusion power is always just 40 years away. So … does that mean there’s still ten years left, or forty?

  11. cancer_man says:

    Naysayers! You probably don’t even realize resveratrol can hypothetically cure cancer.

  12. Me says:

    Well since Pons and Fleischmann appeared to take all their PR tricks from Tesla, why don’t they now try to rebuild Wardenclyffe and disrupt wireless communication.

  13. gippgig says:

    Examples of far-fetched ideas that actually turned out to be true:
    reverse transcription
    amorphous semiconductors

  14. gippgig says:

    …and epigenetics (see Lamarckism)

  15. anonymous says:

    which is more likely, cold fusion or the amyloid hypothesis?

    1st is 0%
    2nd seems to be trending that way

    1. Skeptic says:

      There is evidence that beta-amyloid is involved in Alzheimer’s. There is no evidence that the coulomb barrier can be bypassed at low energies except in the case of meson-catalyzed fusion.

  16. WWCody says:

    As I recall, Feynman noted that what counts is not just an initial, unexpected result but rather the subsequent experimental results by other groups. Those groups should first see if they can replicate the results before trying to improve the system. If the subsequent data are more supportive and clearer, as people learn better to manipulate the system, the underlying idea is probably real. If the subsequent data are still marginal, in spite of efforts to show the idea is correct, then the underlying idea remains indemonstrable and probably wrong. N rays and polywater are previous examples of such ideas.

  17. Scott says:

    Such a shame that even with a Googledollar** investment, they couldn’t figure things out for sure.

    ** pun totally intended.

  18. Anonymous says:

    I also remember when Pons and Fleischmann hit the headlines in a pre-publication news conference at U of Utah. There had been an agreement with Steve Jones of BYU who had a paper claiming evidence of cold muon catalyzed geo-fusion that UT and BYU would announce their mutually supportive claims in a joint news conference. UT honchos unilaterally broke that agreement in order to claim precedence of the discovery (even though others had claimed cold fusion by electrolysis decades earlier).

    Also at that time, it is guesstimated that hundreds (thousands?) of researchers ran to their labs to set up any kind of electrolysis of D2O with Pd or other electrodes. It was at that time that I wondered if something similar happened in chem labs when Woodward and Doering published their relay quinine synthesis in 1944. Did tens? or hundreds? of grad students find samples of quinotoxine in their labs or make a small batch from quinine and try to reproduce Rabe and Kindler’s conversion back to quinine? My “gut” is telling me that some did try but never reported what happened (success or failure). (Did Stork ever try to reproduce Rabe and Kindler?) The question was settled years later by Bob Williams (see wikipedia link in my handle).

    A few years prior to Pons and Fleischmann, in 1986, Bednorz and Mueller had reported a breakthrough in high temperature superconductivity using YBaCu ceramics. Tens(?) or hundreds(?) or more researchers quickly jumped to reproduce and extend the claim because it was so easy to do and so easy to vary the recipe. B&M were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1987.

    Hmmm … if my quinine-repeat theory is true, that’s 3 examples with different outcomes.
    1. Major claim (Pons & F) + 30 years of copy cats = still no convincing proof.
    2. Major claim (quinine) + 60+ years of occasional unsuccessful efforts to repeat and THEN final proof of success.
    3. Major claim (supercons) + just a few months of many copy cats = undeniable proof of the breakthrough claim

  19. Little ‘ un says:

    Desktop=lazy; benchtop=good

  20. Michael Striker says:

    Crackpot moment! Why is iron 8.5 g/cc and no longer 5.56?

    That aside, I’m reserving judgement. Many cutting edge papers from singular locations have exhibited amazing results. Few of the experiments can be replicated elsewhere despite that being a tacit component of proven science. Yet the results are considered proven. (Klapotke’s overly nitrided materials and CERN’s results are 2 graphic examples.)

    As yet, definitive results are inconsistent, even with years of production and thousands of iterations. Thus, we only know likelihoods, and few certainties.

    1. Chris Phoenix says:

      Huh? Iron isn’t 8.5 g/cc as far as I can see. The typical number I found was 7.86.

      1. Michael Striker says:

        Per iron: that’s what I feared. ‘Twas 5.56, 5.65, and 8.6 in my memories of researching densities. (I’m not disparaging my sources. The few I own also change when the facts do…)

        1. anon says:

          I think the density of iron ORE is about 5.5 g/mL.

  21. loupgarous says:

    This isn’t Google’s first go ’round with fusion. The late Dr. Robert Bussard (of the AEC and ramscoop fame) gave a talk to Google about how they should fund development of his inertial electrostatic fusor

    Google didn’t bite, but part of the Obama “stimulus” was funding for development of the Bussard design (after his death) under the US Navy’s auspices by former Los Alamos National Laboratory scientists working as EMC2 Energy. About $8 million was earmarked for the design work.

    NBC News did a decent summary of the progress of EMC2 Energy’s work so far

  22. Barry says:

    One can’t prove the negative, of course. For five decades after Woodward/von Eggers Doering published their formal quinine synthesis, there were murmurs that the Rabe-Kindler Aluminum reduction of quinotoxine to quinine on which they relied didn’t work. Turns out, it’s tricky, but does work:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3085927/

  23. sans sheriff says:

    Maybe its spin orbit coupling. did they try thiolphenol¿

  24. Greg Daigle says:

    More discussion on the Google experiments at the LENR Forum: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5990-nature-google-funded-research-fails-to-find-excess-heat-nuclear-signature-reache/?pageNo=1 Included there are thoughts on why Google did not see anomalous heat, but appreciative of Google opening new avenues for publication.

  25. Shortnfat says:

    Martin was a co-supervisor for my PhD. In the 1980s. I also had contact with him much later when die-hard cold fusion supporters wanted to get in touch with him. Alas, the whole affair ruined his retirement as well as his reputation.

    1. EChem says:

      This was indeed a great shame as Fleischman had several important major discoveries, include surface-enhanced Raman. Pons is a very different story though

  26. Ascoli65 says:

    “And the question is, at what point do you stop staying “Well, if it’s there, it’s really complicated” and start saying “Actually, if it’s that complicated it might as well not be there at all”.”

    Good question. My answer: when people stop looking for experimental confirmations of F&P’s claims and will look at the huge mistakes they made in their evaluations of experimental data.

    The first goal is impossible to achieve and even if researchers, like those hired by Google, will fail to successfully replicate thousands more of experimental configurations, the CF’s believers will keep saying that they didn’t correcty reproduced all the details of the original tests. The second is the only achievable goal and, once reached, it will definitively reveal the scientific unreliability of the two CF pioneers.

    Now, it happens that the most sensational test performed by F&P is the “boil-off experiment” run in 1992 at IMRA labs in France. It is also the most famous. In May 1994, the four cells under testing were presented in the “Good Morning America” program (see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXaijlN1AKo]), while the speaker explained (at 2:17): “… as this lab video shows the devices can do boil over and dry out after just a short while”.

    Well, the video above is too short and you can’t see any cell drying out, but a longer version of the same lab video (see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn9K1Hvw434]) shows the four cells boiling over and drying out.

    This lab video was used to estimate the (alleged) excess heat produced during the experiment, as F&P explained in a paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Cold Fusion held in Nagoya (J) in 1992 (see [http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf]).

    The energy balance is calculated on page 16. It’s a quite sloppy calculation that essentially would show that the cells produced 171 W against an average power input of 37.5 W. This allegedly extraordinary result allowed the two authors to conclude on page 19: “We note that excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input even for this highly inefficient system”.

    But, as shown by the calculations, this energy balance is based on the (wrong) assumption that half of the initial water content of each cell (5 moles/2 = 2.5 moles) has evaporated during the last 600 s of the boil-off period. On page 14 of their paper, F&P stated to have obtained these input data by making a “reasonably accurate estimates of the cell contents” by looking at the video recordings. More specifically, they tracked the water level inside the cell while it was decreasing, as shown in another available version of the same lab video (see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8]).

    The lab videos clearly show which obvious errors were made in assessing the energy performances of this famous F&P experiment. Both the input data used for calculating the mass evaporation rate (=mass/time) were incorrect. In particular, the blue arrows on the second video show that the last part of the boil-off period lasted from 20 to 35 minutes, a period much longer than the 10 minutes assumed by F&P in their calculations. Furthermore, the mass of evaporated water was estimated assuming that the residual content of the boiling cell was fully liquid, whereas the videos show the presence of a large fraction of voids, due to both the rising vapor bubbles and the formation of a thick layer of foam. So, F&P strongly underestimated the boil-off duration and heavily overestimated the evaporated mass. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the “1992 boil-off experiment” produced any excess heat.

    In conclusion, if F&P have so blatantly misrepresented the experimental data of their most famous and celebrated experiment, what confidence can be given to the other much less documented results claimed by the two CF pioneers?

  27. Wavefunction says:

    Exactly the kind of research Google should (and can) fund: low probability-high impact. I wonder if they will look at sonofusion as well.

  28. DTX says:

    On Alphabet having too much money: Their investment in research is astonishing: last year they spent $21.4 billion on R&D.

    It would be interesting to see a break out on this, i.e., how much is on blue sky ideas (or whatever you want to call cold fusion)?

    1. loupgarous says:

      One thing they didn’t fund was the late Robert Bussard’s “polywell” inertial electrostatic fusor (a modification of the old Farnsworth-Hirsch inertial electrostatic confinement fusor formerly used in the oil patch as a neutron source, and still used to make Mo-99 for medical purposes).

      The late Dr. Bussard’s talk “Should Google go Nuclear” is still hosted as a Google TechTalk on YouTUbe.

      1. loupgarous says:

        That wasn’t the end of Bussard’s polywell fusor, however. The US Navy and Electric Power Research Institute funded work by Bussard’s company Energy Matter Conversion Corporation (EMC2) starting in the 1990s (two SBIR grants), and proceeding to Bussard’s WB-6 device, which demonstrated significant deuterium fusion at a well potential of 12.5 kV, while Farnsworth fusors running at that voltage didn’t generate detectable neutron emission.

        Windings in one of WB-6’s hand-wound electromagnets burned up, stopping research at that point – which is when Bussard gave his techtalk to Google. Bridge funding from the US Navy kept EMC2 active after Bussard’s death in October 2007.

        EMC2 built the WB-7 device and an ion injection gun for it in 2008 and it was delivered to the EMC2 testing lab. A “stimulus” project during the Obama administration was a project run by the US Navy from facilities in San Diego to build a larger WB-8 polywell fusor (which ran at 0.8 Tesla). The new CEO at EMC2, Jaeyoung Park, has announced the firm expects to publish proof of concept sometime between 2019-2020.

  29. loupgarous says:

    The article’s behind a pay wall, so I can’t see – were any of the original experiments using deuterium or D2O performed? All I see are refrerences to hydrogen and hydrides, and I’m assuming that means they just worked with protium.

  30. loupgarous says:

    The paper “Revisiting the Cold Case of Cold Fusion” ends like this:

    “Call to actionFusion stands out as a mechanism with enormous potential to affect how we generate energy. This opportunity has already mobilized a 25 billion dollar international investment to construct ITER72,73. Simultaneous research into alternative forms of fusion, including cold fusion, might present solutions that require shorter timelines or less extensive infrastructure.A reasonable criticism of our effort may be ‘Why pursue cold fusion when it has not been proven to exist?’. One response is that evaluating cold fusion led our programme to study materials and phenomena that we otherwise might not have considered. We set out looking for cold fusion, and instead benefited contemporary research topics in unexpected ways52,53,57,58,62–64,68,74–76.A more direct response to this question, and the underlying motiva-tion of our effort, is that our society is in urgent need of a clean energy breakthrough77. Finding breakthroughs requires risk taking, and we contend that revisiting cold fusion is a risk worth taking.We hope our journey will inspire others to produce and contribute data in this intriguing parameter space. This is not an all-or-nothing endeavour. Even if we do not find a transformative energy source, this exploration of matter far from equilibrium is likely to have a substantial impact on future energy technologies78,79. It is our perspective that the search for a reference experiment for cold fusion remains a worthy pursuit because the quest to understand and control unusual states of matter is both interesting and important78,79.

    It’s encouraging that this study wasn’t undertaken to debunk cold fusion, but to really re-investigate the systems described by Fleischmann and Pons, not just the claims they made or their questionable experimental work.

  31. Fusionreality says:

    Trump is about to announce a massive national effort directed towards making nuclear fusion a reality, something along the lines of what was put into the Apollo space program, which was 100 billion of today’s dollars.
    Currently we only contribute about 0.12% of that amount to the international nuclear fusion project.

    Fusion will be a reality soon…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzotd2YT77M

    1. loupgarous says:

      DoE has already dumped almost $20 billion into controlled thermonuclear fusion research. It’s been called “the most promising power technology because researchers have been promising “it’s almost here” since the 1950s.

      Politicians like to promise grand things just before election time. This isn’t specifically smack against Trump; another party’s front-runner for President has just promised if we elect him, he’ll cure cancer, which is a cynical lie. But Trump is essentially promising to dump a ton of money into fusion power research, which is already happening and has happened since the 1950s. Notice any fusion power yet?

    2. steve says:

      The only thing Trump has ever succeeded in fostering is CONfusion.

      1. loupgarous says:

        At least Trump didn’t do what Joe Biden did, tell cancer patients to believe that a huge bolus of government money can furnish a “cure for cancer” (many of these patients and their families don’t think to ask “which cancer?”) if he’s elected President.

        Trump’s fusion pie-in-the-sky isn’t likely to do anything that $20 billion in Federal money hasn’t already, because DoE has traditionally shoved their budget on the square in the roulette table marked “controlled thermonuclear fusion”, and the ball just never wants to land there. But at least it’s not a cynical lie aimed at people who are facing death and their families.

        1. steve says:

          Oh bull. Biden has made an enormous effort to drive cancer research, as opposed to Trump who opposes science in every way he can, from climate denial to trying to drastically cut NIH funding, to preventing EPA and other agencies from publishing, etc. Stop the nonsensical comparison.

          1. loupgarous says:

            Biden likes his name on a lot of stuff, including cancer research. I’m sure that’s co-incidental to his Presidential ambitions.

            And Obama started cutting funding for EPA’s chartered activities such as radon in dwellngs research to redirect it to climate change-related activities. You seem to have missed that.

          2. steve says:

            Not the place for this but you’ve totally destroyed the little credibility you had by attempting to compare cuts Obama did to EPA with the vast amount of destruction that Trump has wrought. Not worth arguing, just try to understand what it is about your psyche that would even allow you put such a ridiculous comparison into print for the world to see.

  32. At this point, cold fusion research has to be regarded as a long shot. I would not advise anyone to invest the bulk of their life savings in it, for sure. But Google is large enough to have diverse interests, and it’s not necessarily bad for them to put some money into some long shot investments that probably won’t pay off. They have other kinds of investments in their portfolio as well.

  33. li zhi says:

    I recall vividly my reaction to reading the claim by Fleischmann because at the time I was studying some articles written (or co-authored) by him (on elecetrochemistry, I forget the details). My reaction was something along the lines of “My God, if they’re wrong they’re ruined.” It must have taken some combination of guts and ego to publish. It subsequently turned out that their set-up was an embarrassment and their data logging risible. It was more understandable then because data logging (or even the old stand-by of a strip chart recorder) was expensive (and typically analog). I think of the “product” I’ve made which has turned out to be silicone grease. I think about polywater which turned out to be human sweat and the bacteria that metabolize arsenic. There is an art to this lab science stuff, and technique matters – otherwise why PhD? In the particular area (of physics) P&F were investigating, they were noobs. They could have and should have been more careful (that is, done a second round of well monitored experiments (using the right damn sensors!!) after they sought out some (appropriate) expert advice…Extraordinary claims require… I’m also reminded of the behavior in which a group of people behave in a way that none of them would individually. I forget what that’s called, but it’s a real thing, some kind of feedback loop results in atypical behavior. I wonder if the chemistry between P & F led to some of that in 1989…

    1. li zhi says:

      by “chemistry” above, I mean “personal chemistry” (i.e. psycho-dynamics).

    2. Orv says:

      I remember, even in the popular press, a few people pointing out that if they’d really achieved cold fusion on the level claimed they probably should both be dead, or at very least their lab setup should be significantly radioactive from neutron activation.

  34. Wet Chemist says:

    I think it’s odd (but understandable) that the google team buried the lead in their review article. On the final page of the main review article, they casually mention seeing neutrons from D-D fusion in their pulsed plasma discharge tests, which were a re-examination of work from a LANL group. Here is a link to the paper (“Investigation of light ion fusion reactions with plasma discharges”):

    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1905/1905.03400.pdf

    The work may just be a curiosity, but I found it interesting. I suspect they didn’t lead with it because they didn’t want to create a media circus.

  35. Desdar says:

    I don’t think that fusion is possible.
    From a thermodynamic point the energy barrier that needs to be overcome before nuclei can fuse is immense and I don’t see how the reaction could be catalyzed.
    The effects of quantum tunneling only are visible at extremely short distances after which you will have needed to pay some of the energy cost. The energy landscape can not be altered as it can be done in chemistry, so need to pay quite a lot of that energy cost to get a sustained fusion reaction. And this is were shit hits the fan.

    Fusion reactions liberate an incredible amount of energy. Cold fusion will not stay cold for very long since it releases 1.6e8 kcal/mol. It will heat up the catalyst, the container, everything. Additionally fusion releases high energy particles, often neutrons, in the reaction irradiating the surroundings even very small reactions speeds. The fusion of a 100 millionth of a mole releases 1e15 particles with the energy to break a million chemical bonds, so containment is necessary.

    If anybody claims to have an active fusion reaction in the same room and they aren’t dead they aren’t telling the truth.

    1. loupgarous says:

      Obviously, Google needs to hire a medium to cover all the possible bases.

  36. Sam says:

    There is still the controversial
    Andrea Rossi with his LENR
    technology.

    https://e-catworld.com/

  37. Jukka says:

    I don’t think there is any real controversy with Rossi, he is just a lame joke.

  38. WAYNE OWEN4 says:

    Looks like SINDRE ZEINER GUNDERSEN and NORRONT FUSION making great progress . All we need now is a inexhaustible resource of Ultra Dense Hydrogen . http://www.subtleatomics.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.