Proponents trumpet any paper concerning the subject that achieves peer review in any venue whatsoever, as if "peer reviewed" meant "solid verified and settled science" rather than "not-obviously-wrong request for comment." Proponents advocate cold fusion as an alternative energy source with imminent practical utility, despite the aforementioned lack of reproducibility. At the same time, proponents try to blame their lack of success on persecution from the establishment. The theories proposed to explain the supposed effect, outlined in the 2010 review, are little more than contrived rationalizations of the claimed observations. When considered in the context of what is already known about physics and chemistry, they border on the nonsensical. There is a continuing failure to find a setup that consistently (nearly 100% of the time) reproduces the supposed effect. The great majority of written-up experiments fail even to obtain excess heat. | Proponents trumpet any paper concerning the subject that achieves peer review in any venue whatsoever, as if "peer reviewed" meant "solid verified and settled science" rather than "not-obviously-wrong request for comment." Proponents advocate cold fusion as an alternative energy source with imminent practical utility, despite the aforementioned lack of reproducibility. At the same time, proponents try to blame their lack of success on persecution from the establishment. The theories proposed to explain the supposed effect, outlined in the 2010 review, are little more than contrived rationalizations of the claimed observations. When considered in the context of what is already known about physics and chemistry, they border on the nonsensical. There is a continuing failure to find a setup that consistently (nearly 100% of the time) reproduces the supposed effect. The great majority of written-up experiments fail even to obtain excess heat. |