In 1989 Fleischmann and Pons reported that they produced excess heat via cold fusion Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction. Their experiments could not be replicated, plus flawed positive replications were withdrawn, plus Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts as previously claimed.
A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth. It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment.
Nice regurgitation of the "hot physics" meme about cold fusion. Unfortunately, there have been quite a few replications, many very recently. And done by researchers who are completely above board and legit.
"A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth. It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment."
So, based on that criterion, please point out ANY true hoax involving CF. As I said, I've been following the subject for quite a few years, and I'm not aware of anything that has been a actual hoax.
The Pons-Fleischmann excess heat effect has been replicated more than 14,700 times.
Nuclear fusion inside condense matters
Frontiers of Physics in China
Volume 2, Number 1, 96-102, DOI: 10.1007/s11467-007-0005-8
This article describes in detail the nuclear fusion inside condense mattersthe Fleischmann-Pons effect, the reproducibility of cold fusions, self-consistency of cold fusions and the possible applications
1. Jed Rothwell
11:52 AM 6/20/10
Shermer says that Goodstein concluded that cold fusion was most likely a case of scientists who convince themselves that they are in the possession of knowledge that does not in fact exist.
Cold fusion has been replicated in over 180 major laboratories, by roughly 1,500 professional scientists. These replications have been published in roughly 800 papers in mainstream, peer reviewed journals such as J. Electroanal. Chem. and Japanese J. of Applied Physcis. J. He of the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences estimates that the effect has been observed in roughly 14,000 experimental runs (Front. Phys. China (2007) 1: 96 102).
Many of the results were at low signal to noise ratio, but others were high, such as heat from 10 to 100 W, and tritium at 50 times background (Los Alamos, Texas A&M) up to several million times (BARC).
Most of the researchers who have reported positive results are senior, distinguished experts, such as the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, government of India, and the experts at Los Alamos in charge of the Tritium Systems Test Assembly and the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princton. Only senior researchers can get funding because of academic politics.
When a result has been widely replicated at high signal to noise ratios and reported in the literature, that result is real, by definition. There is no other standard of reality in science. If it were possible for hundreds of scientists in hundreds of laboratories to be wrong, the experimental method would not work, and no result would be meaningful, and science itself would not work. If Shermer and Goodstein would substitute some other standard of truth, and ignore replication and peer-review, they are engaged in some form of faith-based religion or a popularity contest, not science.