This is wrong, it has been replicated by many groups, and other groups have reported failure. Most groups find that it is hard to repeat, if the metal is not extremely clean, there are impurities in the metal, and if there are ANY cracks in the metal, it will not work. The latest groups that have been reporting success by examining the electrodes under an electron microscope to make sure there are no submicroscopic cracks. None of this was done in the early days, when no one realized just how lucky Pons and Flieshman were to have made it work with the materials they had on hand.
Take a look at the dozens of issues of either "Cold Fusion" or "Infinite Energy" magazine over the last few years and you will find that dozens of groups have replicated these results, and the ability to get positive results are increasing each year as they figure out just what poisons the process. Others have reported success with other "cold fusion" methods, such as sonoluminance, and ultrasonic enhancement of the process. Many of the initial groups that reported failure were using instruments to pick up neutrons or gamma rays they expected to be emitted, but this turned out to be wrong. Although some experiments produce tritium, none produce any significant neurtons or gamma rays that present theories predict should accompany any fusion. The positives are being recorded by measuring an increase in tritium, and/or excess energy. One of the major problems with measuring excess energy is that of accounting for the energy necessary to power the electrolysis, and the huge amount of energy that is often input for days before the action actually takes place. If this is not instrumented very accurately, any positive results are lost in the noise. A good review of the early work and the mistakes made on both sides is the book "Fire from Ice" by Eugene Mallove, the editor of Infinite Energy magazine.. Marshall sol wrote: > I can answer part of the cold fusion question, as my son was a physics > major and grad student through that time. Many tried to replicate the > "cold fusion" experiment and all failed to get the results the BYU > scientists reported. I don't know what happened to them. But I believe > even they could not replicate their own results again. In trying to make > reliably repeatable perfectly clear EIS under the apparently weird > conditions in my house and water, I no longer think they were > necessarily faking it, but whatever happened that they thought they saw, > must have been a very weird "one off" indeed. > paula > > Jonathan B. Britten wrote: > > > BTW, I can not help but wonder whether the "fraudulent" fusion > > experiments some years ago might have been a case of the > > "conditioning" that Tiller described. I wonder what happened to > > those scientists who claimed the table-top cold fusion. . . . > > -- > The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. > > Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org > > To post, address your message to: [email protected] > Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > > Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected] > OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html > > List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]> -- The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: [email protected] Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected] OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
