Originally Posted by Ding Chavez
Thanks for the science lesson DuckieHo. Doesn't have anything to do with what I said. This particular article sounds like 100% rubbish. I was merely saying I've read about cold fusion in a respected scientific publication and there is something there. At first cold fusion was laughed at by the scientific community but now they are starting to take it a bit more seriously as a number of teams around the world have produced some very interesting experiments which show signs of nuclear reactions taking place. The large hadron collider (LHC) shows sub-atomic particles doing some extremely bizarre things and to assume we know everything about physics would be an incorrect assumption.
Cold fusion has been in around for decades. If anything, less attention is paid to it now than years ago.
Just because there are "signs of nuclear reactions taking place", why do these reactions have to be fusion?
Is there net gain from any of these experiments? Are any of these experiments peer reviewed or at least provide causation?
A non-repeatable experiment is not a valid basis for science.