Editing Cold fusion (section)

== Later research ==

A 1991 review by a cold fusion proponent had calculated "about 600 scientists" were still conducting research.<ref name="small community 600">{{harvnb|Huizenga|1993|pp=210–211}} citing {{cite journal|mode=cs2  |title=Nuclear Fusion in an Atomic Lattice: An Update on the International Status of Cold Fusion Research |last=Srinivisan |first=M.|journal=Current Science |volume=60 |page=471}}</ref> After 1991, cold fusion research only continued in relative obscurity, conducted by groups that had increasing difficulty securing public funding and keeping programs open. These small but committed groups of cold fusion researchers have continued to conduct experiments using Fleischmann and Pons electrolysis setups in spite of the rejection by the mainstream community.<ref name=Broad1989b/><ref name="small community" />{{sfn|ps=|Simon|2002|pp=131–133, 218}} ''The Boston Globe'' estimated in 2004 that there were only 100 to 200 researchers working in the field, most suffering damage to their reputation and career.{{sfn|ps=|Daley|2004}} Since the main controversy over Pons and Fleischmann had ended, cold fusion research has been funded by private and small governmental scientific investment funds in the United States, Italy, Japan, and India.  For example, it was reported in [[Nature (journal)|''Nature'']], in May, 2019, that [[Google]] had spent approximately $10 million on cold fusion research.  A group of scientists at well-known research labs (e.g., [[MIT]], [[Lawrence Berkeley National Lab]], and others) worked for several years to establish experimental protocols and measurement techniques in an effort to re-evaluate cold fusion to a high standard of scientific rigor.  Their reported conclusion: no cold fusion.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Ball |first=David |date= September 2019 |title= Google funds cold fusion research: Results still negative|magazine=[[Skeptical Inquirer]] |location=Amherst, NY |publisher=Center for Inquiry}}</ref>

In 2021, following ''Nature's'' 2019 publication of anomalous findings that might only be explained by some localized fusion, scientists at the [[Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center|Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division]] announced that they had assembled a group of scientists from the Navy, Army and [[National Institute of Standards and Technology]] to undertake a new, coordinated study.<ref name=":0" /> With few exceptions, researchers have had difficulty publishing in mainstream journals.{{sfn|ps=|Browne|1989}}<ref name=Broad1989b/><ref name="most scientists" /><ref name="small community" /> The remaining researchers often term their field Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR),{{sfn|ps=|Mullins|2004}} Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR), Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS) or Lattice Enabled Nuclear Reactions; one of the reasons being to [[euphemism|avoid the negative connotations]] associated with "cold fusion".{{sfn|ps=|Simon|2002|pp=131–133, 218}}{{sfn|ps=|Seife|2008|pp=154–155}} The new names avoid making bold implications, like implying that fusion is actually occurring.<ref>{{harvnb|Simon|2002|pp=131}}, citing {{harvnb|Collins|Pinch|1993|loc=p. 77 in first edition}}</ref>

The researchers who continue their investigations acknowledge that the flaws in the original announcement are the main cause of the subject's marginalization, and they complain of a chronic lack of funding<ref name="bbc march 2009">{{cite web| mode=cs2 | title=Cold fusion debate heats up again | publisher=[[BBC]] | date=23 March 2009 | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7959183.stm | url-status=live | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160111172930/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7959183.stm | archive-date=11 January 2016 }}</ref> and no possibilities of getting their work published in the highest impact journals.{{sfn|ps=|Feder|2004|p=27}} University researchers are often unwilling to investigate cold fusion because they would be ridiculed by their colleagues and their professional careers would be at risk.<ref>{{harvnb|Taubes|1993|pp=292, 352, 358}}, {{harvnb|Goodstein|1994}}, {{harvnb|Adam|2005}} (comment attributed to George Miley of the University of Illinois)</ref> In 1994, [[David Goodstein]], a professor of physics at [[Caltech]], advocated increased attention from mainstream researchers and described cold fusion as:

{{blockquote|1=A pariah field, cast out by the scientific establishment. Between cold fusion and respectable science there is virtually no communication at all. Cold fusion papers are almost never published in refereed scientific journals, with the result that those works don't receive the normal critical scrutiny that science requires. On the other hand, because the Cold-Fusioners see themselves as a community under siege, there is little internal criticism. Experiments and theories tend to be accepted at face value, for fear of providing even more fuel for external critics, if anyone outside the group was bothering to listen. In these circumstances, crackpots flourish, making matters worse for those who believe that there is serious science going on here.{{sfn|ps=|Goodstein|1994}}}}

===United States===
[[File:Spawar1stGenCFCell.JPG|thumb|upright|Cold fusion apparatus at the [[Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center San Diego]] (2005)]]

United States Navy researchers at the [[Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center]] (SPAWAR) in San Diego have been studying cold fusion since 1989.{{sfn|ps=|Mullins|2004}}<ref name=MosierBoss2009 /> In 2002 they released a two-volume report, "Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D<sub>2</sub>O system", with a plea for funding.<ref>[http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1862/tr1862-vol1.pdf Szpak, Masier-Boss: Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D<sub>2</sub>O system] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130216190531/http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1862/tr1862-vol1.pdf |date=16 February 2013 }}, Feb 2002. Reported by {{harvnb|Mullins|2004}}</ref> This and other published papers prompted a 2004 [[United States Department of Energy|Department of Energy]] (DOE) review.{{sfn|ps=|Mullins|2004}}

==== 2004 DOE panel ====
In August 2003, the [[U.S. Secretary of Energy]], [[Spencer Abraham]], ordered the DOE to organize a second review of the field.{{sfn|ps=|Brumfiel|2004}} This was thanks to an April 2003 letter sent by MIT's [[Peter L. Hagelstein]],<ref name="Weinberger2004" />{{rp|3}} and the publication of many new papers, including the Italian ENEA and other researchers in the 2003 International Cold Fusion Conference,<ref name="ENEA_Magazin" /> and a two-volume book by U.S. [[SPAWAR]] in 2002.{{sfn|ps=|Mullins|2004}} Cold fusion researchers were asked to present a review document of all the evidence since the 1989 review. The report was released in 2004. The reviewers were "split approximately evenly" on whether the experiments had produced energy in the form of heat, but "most reviewers, even those who accepted the evidence for excess power production, 'stated that the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented'".{{Sfn|ps=|Brumfiel|2004}}{{sfn|ps=|Feder|2005}} In summary, reviewers found that cold fusion evidence was still not convincing 15 years later, and they did not recommend a federal research program.{{sfn|ps=|Brumfiel|2004}}{{sfn|ps=|Feder|2005}} They only recommended that agencies consider funding individual well-thought studies in specific areas where research "could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field".{{sfn|ps=|Brumfiel|2004}}{{sfn|ps=|Feder|2005}} They summarized its conclusions thus:

{{poemquote|While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.

The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods. The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals. |Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, US Department of Energy, December 2004{{sfn|ps=|US DOE|2004}}}}

Cold fusion researchers placed a "rosier spin"{{sfn|ps=|Feder|2005}} on the report, noting that they were finally being treated like normal scientists, and that the report had increased interest in the field and caused "a huge upswing in interest in funding cold fusion research".{{sfn|ps=|Feder|2005}} However, in a 2009 BBC article on an American Chemical Society's meeting on cold fusion, particle physicist [[Frank Close]] was quoted stating that the problems that plagued the original cold fusion announcement were still happening: results from studies are still not being independently verified and inexplicable phenomena encountered are being labelled as "cold fusion" even if they are not, in order to attract the attention of journalists.<ref name="bbc march 2009"/>

In February 2012, millionaire [[Sidney Kimmel]], convinced that cold fusion was worth investing in by a 19 April 2009 interview with physicist [[Robert Duncan (physicist)|Robert Duncan]] on the US news show ''[[60 Minutes]]'',<ref name=Columbia_Tribune_SKINR /> made a grant of $5.5&nbsp;million to the [[University of Missouri]] to establish the Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance (SKINR). The grant was intended to support research into the interactions of hydrogen with palladium, nickel or platinum under extreme conditions.<ref name=Columbia_Tribune_SKINR>Janese Silvey, [http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/feb/10/billionaire-helps-fund-mu-energy-research/ "Billionaire helps fund MU energy research"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121215042347/http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/feb/10/billionaire-helps-fund-mu-energy-research/ |date=15 December 2012 }}, Columbia Daily Tribune, 10 February 2012</ref><ref name=Press_Release_Kimmel>University of Missouri-Columbia [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-02/uom-mg021012.php "$5.5 million gift aids search for alternative energy. Gift given by Sidney Kimmel Foundation, created by founder of the Jones Group"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305011010/http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-02/uom-mg021012.php |date=5 March 2016 }}, 10 February 2012, (press release), [http://www.physorg.com/wire-news/90341685/55-million-gift-aids-search-for-alternative-energy.html alternative link]</ref><ref name=Missourian_SKINR>[http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2012/02/10/sidney-kimmel-foundation-awards-55-million-mu-scientists/ "Sidney Kimmel Foundation awards $5.5 million to MU scientists"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120305101814/http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2012/02/10/sidney-kimmel-foundation-awards-55-million-mu-scientists/ |date=5 March 2012 }} Allison Pohle, Missourian, 10 February 2012</ref> In March 2013 Graham K. Hubler, a nuclear physicist who worked for the Naval Research Laboratory for 40 years, was named director.<ref>Christian Basi, [http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2013/0308-hubler-named-director-of-nuclear-renaissance-institute-at-mu/ Hubler Named Director of Nuclear Renaissance Institute at MU] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304023438/http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2013/0308-hubler-named-director-of-nuclear-renaissance-institute-at-mu/ |date=4 March 2016}}, (press release) Missouri University News Bureau, 8 March 2013</ref> One of the SKINR projects is to replicate a 1991 experiment in which a professor associated with the project, Mark Prelas, says bursts of millions of neutrons a second were recorded, which was stopped because "his research account had been frozen". He claims that the new experiment has already seen "neutron emissions at similar levels to the 1991 observation".<ref>[http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/oct/28/professor-revisits-fusion-work-from-two-decades/ Professor revisits fusion work from two decades ago] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121102004909/http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/oct/28/professor-revisits-fusion-work-from-two-decades/ |date=2 November 2012 }} Columbia Daily Tribune, 28 October 2012</ref><ref>Mark A. Prelas, Eric Lukosi. [http://prelas.nuclear.missouri.edu/Publications/LENR%20Korea%20ICCF-17%20Proceedings%20Titanium%20Thermal%20Shock%20v3.pdf Neutron Emission from Cryogenically Cooled Metals Under Thermal Shock] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130116205612/http://prelas.nuclear.missouri.edu/Publications/LENR%20Korea%20ICCF-17%20Proceedings%20Titanium%20Thermal%20Shock%20v3.pdf |date=16 January 2013 }} (self published)</ref>

In May 2016, the [[United States House Committee on Armed Services]], in its report on the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, directed the [[United States Secretary of Defense|Secretary of Defense]] to "provide a briefing on the military utility of recent U.S. industrial base LENR advancements to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 22, 2016".<ref>{{cite web |last=Hambling |first=David |date=May 13, 2016 |work=Popular Mechanics |url=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a20874/us-house-cold-fusion/ |access-date=18 May 2016 |title=Congress Is Suddenly Interested in Cold Fusion |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160518221421/http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a20874/us-house-cold-fusion/ |archive-date=18 May 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt537/CRPT-114hrpt537.pdf#page=123 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160516124400/https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt537/CRPT-114hrpt537.pdf |archive-date=16 May 2016 |title=Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives Report 114-537 |page=87}}</ref>

===Italy===

Since the Fleischmann and Pons announcement, the Italian national agency for new technologies, energy and sustainable economic development ([[ENEA (Italy)|ENEA]]) has funded Franco Scaramuzzi's research into whether excess heat can be measured from metals loaded with deuterium gas.{{sfn|ps=|Goodstein|2010|pp=87–94}} Such research is distributed across ENEA departments, [[Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche|CNR]] laboratories, [[Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare|INFN]], universities and industrial laboratories in Italy, where the group continues to try to achieve reliable reproducibility (i.e. getting the phenomenon to happen in every cell, and inside a certain frame of time). In 2006–2007, the ENEA started a research program which claimed to have found excess power of up to 500 percent, and in 2009, ENEA hosted the 15th cold fusion conference.<ref name=ENEA_Magazin>{{cite journal|mode= cs2 |title= Effetto Fleischmann e Pons: il punto della situazione |journal= Energia Ambiente e Innovazione |issue= 3 |date= May–June 2011 |language= it |url= http://www.enea.it/it/produzione-scientifica/energia-ambiente-e-innovazione-1/anno-2011/indice-world-view-3-2011/fusione-fredda |url-status= live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120808194206/http://www.enea.it/it/produzione-scientifica/energia-ambiente-e-innovazione-1/anno-2011/indice-world-view-3-2011/fusione-fredda |archive-date= 8 August 2012 }}</ref>{{sfn|ps=|Martellucci |Rosati |Scaramuzzi |Violante |2009}}

===Japan===

Between 1992 and 1997, Japan's [[Ministry of International Trade and Industry]] sponsored a "New Hydrogen Energy (NHE)" program of US$20&nbsp;million to research cold fusion.<ref name="pollack" /> Announcing the end of the program in 1997, the director and one-time proponent of cold fusion research Hideo Ikegami stated "We couldn't achieve what was first claimed in terms of cold fusion. (...) We can't find any reason to propose more money for the coming year or for the future."<ref name="pollack">{{harvnb|Pollack|1992}}, {{harvnb|Pollack|1997|p=C4}}</ref> In 1999 the Japan C-F Research Society was established to promote the independent research into cold fusion that continued in Japan.<ref name=JCFRS>{{cite web|url=http://jcfrs.org/indexe.html|title=Japan CF-research Society|website=jcfrs.org|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160121185606/http://jcfrs.org/indexe.html|archive-date=21 January 2016}}</ref> The society holds annual meetings.<ref name=JCFRS2011>[http://jcfrs.org/JCF12/jcf12-abstracts.pdf Japan CF research society meeting Dec 2011] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160312140405/http://jcfrs.org/JCF12/jcf12-abstracts.pdf |date=12 March 2016 }}</ref> Perhaps the most famous Japanese cold fusion researcher was [[Yoshiaki Arata]], from Osaka University, who claimed in a demonstration to produce excess heat when deuterium gas was introduced into a cell containing a mixture of palladium and zirconium oxide,<ref group="text" name="mixture"/> a claim supported by fellow Japanese researcher Akira Kitamura of Kobe University{{sfn|ps=|Kitamura|Nohmi|Sasaki|Taniike|2009}} and [[Michael McKubre]] at SRI.

===India===

In the 1990s, India stopped its research in cold fusion at the [[Bhabha Atomic Research Centre]] because of the lack of consensus among mainstream scientists and the US denunciation of the research.{{sfn|ps=|Jayaraman|2008}} Yet, in 2008, the [[National Institute of Advanced Studies]] recommended that the Indian government revive this research. Projects were commenced at [[Chennai]]'s [[Indian Institute of Technology]], the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre and the [[Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research]].{{sfn|ps=|Jayaraman|2008}} However, there is still skepticism among scientists and, for all practical purposes, research has stalled since the 1990s.<ref>{{cite news|mode= cs2 |title= Our dream is a small fusion power generator in each house |date= 4 February 2011 |url= https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/interviews/Our-dream-is-a-small-fusion-power-generator-in-each-house/articleshow/7419731.cms |url-status= live |archive-url= http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/20110826044622/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-02-04/interviews/28358904_1_cold-fusion-hydrogen-and-nickel-scientists |work= [[The Times of India]] |archive-date= 26 August 2011 }}</ref> A special section in the Indian multidisciplinary journal ''[[Current Science]]'' published 33 cold fusion papers in 2015 by major cold fusion researchers including several Indian researchers.<ref name="currentscience.ac.in">{{cite web |url=http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/feat.php?feature=Special+Section:+Low+Energy+Nuclear+Reactions&featid=10094 |title=Category: Special Section: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions |work=Current Science |date=25 Feb 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170805185756/http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/feat.php?feature=Special+Section:+Low+Energy+Nuclear+Reactions&featid=10094 |archive-date=2017-08-05}}</ref>