Osaka University’s Cold Fusion or Bad Science?  Courtesy of Engadget

JAPAN – Speak the words “Cold Fusion”, and for good or bad images of the late 1980’s come to mind when our hopes were brought up only to come crashing down.

A little background for those too young to remember. In 1989, two scientists from Utah, Pons and Fleishmann, reported that they were able to produce a fusion reaction that was significantly cooler and less costly than had ever been obtained before. Termed “Cold Fusion” it brought the hopes of the nation up. The end of fossil fuel dependence.

Then reality reared it ugly head. For something to be “science” it needs to be duplicable. When other scientists tried to repeat the experiment, it failed or energy that was put in was similar that came out. Cold Fusion became the coin term for bad science in the western world.

Now Osaka University forced deuterium (heavy hydrogen – containing one neutron) gas under pressure into an evacuated cell containing a sample of palladium dispersed in zirconium oxide, which caused the deuterium to be absorbed by the palladium sample, resulting in a denser, or “pynco” deuterium, with deuterium nuclei that are close enough together to fuse. That process also supposedly resulted in a rise in temperature to about 70° Celsius (158° Fahrenheit).

Supposedly they are going to increase the amount of palladium/zirconium oxide to see if the amount energy released increases. Even if they report that it does, don’t jump up and down. Remember to be good science it needs to be duplicable. Also, they don’t report of any harmful byproduct of the reaction. Whenever you mention “Nuclear” it needs to be tested thoroughly to the extreme.

Afterall, you don’t want your own mini Three Mile Island in your house.

Cause that is what we are talking about. Mini nuclear reactors in our homes, our cars, our work, and etc. If it is truly a cold fusion reaction, it would be as safe as a furnace or a hot water heater. Supposedly the reaction core stayed “hot” for 50 hours on only 7 grams of “fuel”.

We’ll keep a skeptical eye out on this one.