What evidence supports the possibility of nuclear fusion in palladium cathodes?

Click For Summary
Pons and Fleischman's 1989 cold fusion experiment using a palladium cathode in heavy water claimed to release excess energy, which has since sparked ongoing debate and further research. While some researchers support their findings, many physicists argue that the expected byproducts of nuclear fusion, such as high-energy neutrons, are absent, indicating that fusion is not occurring. Discussions highlight that palladium's structural properties might allow for energy distortions, but this does not equate to nuclear fusion. Current studies, including those on sonofusion, have also failed to demonstrate the necessary conditions for fusion, leading to skepticism about the validity of cold fusion claims. Overall, while there may be exothermic reactions present, they do not align with traditional nuclear fusion processes.
  • #31
Ben Powell said:
Abstract: Almost two decades ago, Fleischmann and Pons
reported excess enthalpy generation in the negatively
polarized Pd/D-D2O system, which they attributed to
nuclear reactions. In the months and years that followed,
other manifestations of nuclear activities in this system
were observed, viz. tritium and helium production and
transmutation of elements.
Their factually incorrect statements about the history of the subject raise a red flag re their credibility. As we don't have access to the actual papers you have cited here, there is little that we can say about them - which is why you have been met with so much silence. But be advised that due to the history of fraud surrounding this topic, we are highly skeptical of the subject matter and keep a very short leash on such discussions. This leash includes a constraint against speculation and posing of unverified, unpublished theories as stated in our TOS (as in your last post).
 

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K