When I read the title I was hopeful. When I read the first comment and saw there was no breakthrough, I thought of the pain that something like this segment will cause editors at wikipedia's cold fusion. I went through many of the refs there a while back, and the gist was as follows.
The whole thing has not yielded any significant results or breakthroughs since the first debacle. Various methods and theories continue to be proposed. A big source of vindication for supporters was a DOE report that said CF was not disproven. Many supporters take this to mean that CF has a chance. The scientific community has not thrown CF out and peered papers do get published, but CF's penetration is absolutely minimal.
I really hope that the people working on this succeed. It may be a waste, but we don't know the chances on this lottery. This sort of reporting is annoying and sensationalist, though.
The whole thing has not yielded any significant results or breakthroughs since the first debacle. Various methods and theories continue to be proposed. A big source of vindication for supporters was a DOE report that said CF was not disproven. Many supporters take this to mean that CF has a chance. The scientific community has not thrown CF out and peered papers do get published, but CF's penetration is absolutely minimal.
I really hope that the people working on this succeed. It may be a waste, but we don't know the chances on this lottery. This sort of reporting is annoying and sensationalist, though.