[Answer] Which is most likely why many scientists reject the cold fusion theory?

Answer: The original results have not been replicated consistently and reliably.
Which is most likely why many scientists reject the cold fusion theory?

Researchers in the field do not agree on a theory for cold fusion. One proposal considers that hydrogen and its isotopes can be absorbed in certain solids including palladium hydride at high densities. This creates a high partial pressure reducing the average separation of hydrogen isotopes. However the reduction in separation is not enough by a factor of ten to create the fusion rates claimed in the original experiment. It was also proposed that a higher density of hydrogen inside the palladium and a lower pot…

From the lede (!) By late 1989 most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead [6] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.[7] That’s true but misleading particularly in the lede there are reliable sources which also call the rejection of cold fusion “pathological science.”

The key problem with accelerator-based fusion (and with cold targets in general) is that fusion cross sections are many orders of magnitude lower than Coulomb interaction cross sections . Therefore the vast majority of ions expend their energy emitting bremsstrahlung radiation and the ionization of atoms of the target.

Los Alamos National Laboratory (Los Alamos or LANL for short) is a United States Department of Energy national laboratory initially organized during World War II for the design of nuclear weapons as part of the Manhattan Project.It is a short distance northwest of Santa Fe New Mexico in the southwestern United States.. Los Alamos was selected as the top-secret location for bomb design in …

This is explained in the theory section. That’s why they don’t like the cold fusion name anymore and that most researchers and the DOE calls it low energy nuclear reaction. Do you accept that ? Should it be explained better in our article ? Pcarbonn 20:14 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This characterization is per…

Leave a Reply