Editing Cold fusion (section)

====Announcement====
In mid-March 1989, both research teams were ready to publish their findings, and Fleischmann and Jones had agreed to meet at an airport on 24 March to send their papers to ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' via [[FedEx]].{{sfn|ps=|Lewenstein|1994|pp=8–9}} Fleischmann and Pons, however, pressured by the University of Utah, which wanted to establish priority on the discovery,<ref name="utah patent"/> broke their apparent agreement, disclosing their work at a press conference on 23 March<ref name="nature-lessons">{{Cite journal |last=Ball |first=Philip |date=2019-05-27 |title=Lessons from cold fusion, 30 years on |journal=Nature |language=EN |volume=569 |issue=7758 |pages=601 |doi=10.1038/d41586-019-01673-x|pmid=31133704 |bibcode=2019Natur.569..601B |doi-access=free }}</ref> (they claimed in the press release that  it would be published in ''Nature''<ref name="nature-lessons" /> but instead submitted their paper to the ''Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry'').{{sfn|ps=|Crease|Samios|1989|p=V1}} Jones, upset, faxed in his paper to ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' after the press conference.{{sfn|ps=|Lewenstein|1994|pp=8–9}}

Fleischmann and Pons' announcement drew wide media attention,{{refn|group="notes"|name=Brooks|For example, in 1989, the ''Economist'' editorialized that the cold fusion "affair" was "exactly what science should be about."<ref>{{Cite book|mode=cs2|first=J. K.|last=Footlick|title=Truth and Consequences: how colleges and universities meet public crises|isbn=978-0-89774-970-1|page=[https://archive.org/details/truthconsequence0000foot/page/51 51] |location=Phoenix|publisher=Oryx Press |year=1997 |url=https://archive.org/details/truthconsequence0000foot/page/51}} as cited in {{Cite book|mode=cs2 |first=M|last=Brooks|title=13 Things That Don't Make Sense|isbn=978-1-60751-666-8 |page=67|location=New York|publisher=[[Doubleday (publisher)|Doubleday]]|year=2008|title-link=13 Things That Don't Make Sense}}</ref>}} as well as attention from the scientific community. The 1986 discovery of [[high-temperature superconductivity]] had made scientists more open to revelations of unexpected but potentially momentous scientific results that could be replicated reliably even if they could not be explained by established theories.<ref>{{harvnb|Simon|2002|pp=57–60}}, {{harvnb|Goodstein|1994}}</ref> Many scientists were also reminded of the [[Mössbauer effect]], a process involving [[Isomeric transition|nuclear transitions]] in a solid. Its discovery 30 years earlier had also been unexpected, though it was quickly replicated and explained within the existing physics framework.{{sfn|ps=|Goodstein|1994}}

The announcement of a new purported clean source of energy came at a crucial time: adults still remembered the [[1973 oil crisis]] and the problems caused by oil dependence, anthropogenic [[global warming]] was starting to become notorious, the [[anti-nuclear movement]] was labeling nuclear power plants as dangerous and getting them closed, people had in mind the consequences of [[strip mining]], [[acid rain]], the [[greenhouse effect]] and the [[Exxon Valdez oil spill]], which happened the day after the announcement.<ref>{{harvnb|Petit|2009}}, {{harvnb|Park|2000|p=16}}</ref> In the press conference, [[Chase N. Peterson]], Fleischmann and Pons, backed by the solidity of their scientific credentials, repeatedly assured the journalists that cold fusion would solve environmental problems, and would provide a limitless inexhaustible source of clean energy, using only seawater as fuel.<ref>{{harvnb|Taubes|1993|pp=xviii–xx}}, {{harvnb|Park|2000|p=16}}</ref> They said the results had been confirmed dozens of times and they had no doubts about them.{{sfn|ps=|Taubes|1993|pp=xx–xxi}} In the accompanying press release Fleischmann was quoted saying: "What we have done is to open the door of a new research area, our indications are that the discovery will be relatively easy to make into a usable technology for generating heat and power, but continued work is needed, first, to further understand the science and secondly, to determine its value to energy economics."{{sfn|ps=|Scanlon|Hill|1999|p=212}}