Heavy Watergate: The War Against Cold Fusion

On March 23, 1989, respected chemists, Dr. Stanley Pons and Dr. Martin Fleishman made an announcement that rocked the world of science. Their tabletop experiments with heavy water, a renewable resource readily available in ocean water, yielded enormous amounts of heat energy. Appropriately named, “Cold Fusion,” this breakthrough challenged many basic scientific concepts. In response, a group of powerful physicists, heavily reliant upon government funding for their hot fusion research, leveled an unprecedented smear campaign against Pons, Fleishman and the entire field of Cold Fusion science. Was the discovery of Fire From Water too good to be true? Or was it the discovery of the millennium?

From The Web
Join The Conversation
  • Eric Hannum

    Look, people, Pons and Fleishman didn’t invent anything. They have never been able to produce their “cold fusion” when anyone was watching. Ever. It’s the equivalent of saying “I could make cold fusion if I wanted too, I just don’t feel like it right now.”

    • Theman_man

      i strongly disagree, they were only jellous of the chemist and made them look like fools for it

  • Alex

    What’s with all the weird imagery? Natives dancing, old people playing volleyball, laughing chipmunk sound effects? Who edited this crap?

  • Paul

    So, if this effect is for real, why are we still waiting for cold fusion batteries, domestic generators and power stations? Or does the shadowy conspiracy extend to private industry as well?

    • Jay Cie

      If the effects were real why didn’t they die from neutron radiation.

  • The best quality of fusion machine and hdpe fusion machine supplier.

    • Lecomo

      You really must be desperate to resort to such a crude & pathetic promotional campaign as to try to trick people into visiting your low rent & tawdry website by masking its address within your name.

  • Crank

    Google: Cold Fusion Rossi

    As this Man is in the process of commercializing Cold Fusion this fall. 

    Screw the Elitist bastards who locked us out of clean power for 25 years!

    • Ttt60

      hehe you realise that Rossi’s cold fusion is 100% unproven at this point. 

    • Ttt60

      hehe you realise that Rossi’s cold fusion is 100% unproven at this point. 

    • Ttt60

      hehe you realise that Rossi’s cold fusion is 100% unproven at this point. 

  • The NAVY is all over this in preparing for a post cheap oil future;

  • Cold fusion setups utilize an input power source (to ostensibly provide activation energy), a platinum group electrode, a deuterium or hydrogen source, a calorimeter, and, at times, detectors to look for byproducts such as helium or neutrons. Critics have variously taken issue with each of these aspects and further assert that there has not yet been a consistent reproduction of claimed cold fusion results in either energy output or byproducts. Some cold fusion researchers who claim that they can consistently measure an excess heat effect have argued that the apparent lack of reproducibility might be attributable to a lack of quality control in the electrode metal or the amount of hydrogen or deuterium loaded in the system. Critics have further taken issue with what they describe as mistakes or errors of interpretation that cold fusion researchers have made in calorimetry analyses and energy budgets.

  • In 1989, after Fleischmann and Pons had made their claims, many research groups tried to reproduce the Fleischmann-Pons experiment, without success. A few other research groups, however, reported successful reproductions of cold fusion during this time. In July 1989, an Indian group from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (P. K. Iyengar and M. Srinivasan) and in October 1989, a team from the United States (Bockris et al.) reported on creation of tritium. In December 1990, professor Richard Oriani of the University of Minnesota reported excess heat.

    Groups that did report successes found that some of their cells were producing the effect, while other cells that were built exactly the same and used the same materials were not producing the effect. Researchers that continued to work on the topic have claimed that over the years many successful replications have been made, but still have problems getting reliable replications.Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and its lack led most physicists to believe that the few positive reports could be attributed to experimental error. The DOE 2004 report said among its conclusions and recommendations:

    “Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. (…) Internal inconsistencies and lack of predictability and reproducibility remain serious concerns. (…) The Panel recommends that the cold fusion research efforts in the area of heat production focus primarily on confirming or disproving reports of excess heat.”