Comment Re:Ross's e-cat? (Score 3, Interesting) 188
The SCIAM article is not at all about Rossi, the lead author of the SCIAM article is the guy who busted Rossi for fraud.
Submission + - Scientific American column: It's Not Cold Fusion... But It's Something
An anonymous reader writes: Scientific American magazine has published a guest column on low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). The article puts into context the history of what was mistakenly referred to as cold fusion and what happened. The bottom line is that there is compelling cumulative evidence for nuclear reactions taking place, including shifts in the abundance of isotopes, element transmutations, and localized melting of metals. Furthermore, those reactions do not have the characteristics of either nuclear fission or nuclear fusion. Despite sharp criticism from much of the scientific community after the 1989 announcement by Fleischmann and Pons, the Department of the Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center and other reputable organizations continued the research and published many papers.
The column was co-written by the author and editor of a three book series describing the history of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, from 1912 to the present. Lost History describes the early chemical and electrical transmutations observed between 1912 and 1927. Fusion Fiasco tells the story of what happened when Pons and Fleischmann made their astonishing announcement in 1989, and the fiasco that ensued. Hacking the Atom continues the story from 1990 to the present.
The column was co-written by the author and editor of a three book series describing the history of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, from 1912 to the present. Lost History describes the early chemical and electrical transmutations observed between 1912 and 1927. Fusion Fiasco tells the story of what happened when Pons and Fleischmann made their astonishing announcement in 1989, and the fiasco that ensued. Hacking the Atom continues the story from 1990 to the present.
Slashdot Top Deals
Is your job running? You'd better go catch it!
