Editing Cold fusion (section)

===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>