As Jameske mentioned in his news briefs on Tuesday, cold fusion is back in the spotlight with the recent “significant evidence” published by a research group from the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR). The newly presented findings are actually just one paper out of thirty presented on the topic at this year’s American Chemical Society National Meeting.
The SPAWAR “evidence” is based on visual identification of the presence of excited neutrons, a byproduct of the fusion reaction:
One team, led by Pamela Mosier-Boss, an analytical chemist at the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, has announced visual evidence of a fusion-like reaction. “If you have fusion going on, then you have to have neutrons,” Mosier-Boss said in a statement. “People have always asked ‘Where’s the neutrons,'” she said, and in their presentation, they reported finding evidence of these neurons. By exposing a special kind of plastic to the reaction, patterns of minute dents (or “triple tracks” that show three close nearby forms) were made by excited neutrons created from a nuclear reaction, they report.
I haven’t followed the cold fusion controversy very closely over the years, so can’t comment too much on how this affects the field and/or its critics. I’d suggest checking the Wikipedia page for a basic summary, and threads to follow, for an introduction. Also, this 1996 JSE article by Edmund Storms (PDF) reviewing the literature might be helpful, and Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson has tracked the controversy (along with a number of other scientific heresies) on his website.
