I've read that it was attempted quite a few times during the cold war, and on into the 80s, then they stopped because of too many unsuccessful tries. Some scientists claimed to get at least 60% of their energy returned using only room temperature heat, so apparently the idea EXISTS, and it has the potential to be created...and with the big issue of losing oil as a natural resource, why not try it again?
2006-10-12 18:24:34 · 5 answers · asked by Dennis 6 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Earth Sciences & Geology
Some research is still going on, but after Pons and Fleischman rushed to publicize what turned out to be erroneous results in 1989, the researchers have tended to maintain a low profile. The Pons & Fleischman incident also made it harder for serious researchers to get funding.
2006-10-12 19:07:25 · answer #1 · answered by injanier 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's a bit silly. You can't just fiddle about with various bits of equipment in a laboratory and hope that cold fusion will be the result. You need some sort of hypothesis about the energy transfers that would be going on if it did work, and what kind of environmental conditions or catalyst or whatever would allow it to take place. As things are, there isn't even a plausible hypothesis to start from.
There were several completely sound hypotheses for hot fusion, and some almost-working models, but none which gave stable positive output. Laser-triggered high-frequency pulsed generators are the science fiction writers' favourite, so they're probably the closest to being feasible.
2006-10-13 07:46:04 · answer #2 · answered by bh8153 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I remember correctly, the scientists conducting this experiment were chemists, whereas cold fusion should belong in the realm of Physics. Chemists deal with chemical reactions and cold fusion would have to deal with sub-nuclear processes. Furthermore, there is no working theory that adequately explains why cold fusion should work.
2006-10-13 10:08:51 · answer #3 · answered by Amphibolite 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They have not given up, work still continues on how to reduce the input power requirements to that less then the output.
Currently, Cold Fusion works, but is not cost effective because it requires more energy in then one gets out.
2006-10-13 01:31:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think its on the near-term horizon to be honest.
Coal is the way to go for the next 80 years.
2006-10-13 03:57:52 · answer #5 · answered by midwestbruin 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋