Cited by 88Cold Fusion and Nuclear ReactionsMuon and positron interactions and applicationsHydrogen Storage and Materials

Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion

Berlinguette, Curtis P., Chiang, Yet-Ming, Munday, Jeremy N., Schenkel, Thomas, Fork, David K., Koningstein, Ross, Trevithick, Matthew D.·2019·Nature

Abstract

The 1989 claim of 'cold fusion' was publicly heralded as the future of clean energy generation. However, subsequent failures to reproduce the effect heightened scepticism of this claim in the academic community, and effectively led to the disqualification of the subject from further study. Motivated by the possibility that such judgement might have been premature, we embarked on a multi-institution programme to re-evaluate cold fusion to a high standard of scientific rigour. Here we describe our efforts, which have yet to yield any evidence of such an effect. Nonetheless, a by-product of our investigations has been to provide new insights into highly hydrided metals and low-energy nuclear reactions, and we contend that there remains much interesting science to be done in this underexplored parameter space.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41586-019-1256-6

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Overstated claims can occasionally accelerate progress, by provoking methodological reform or rapid follow-up work.

    “overstated claims can occasionally accelerate progress, by provoking methodological reform or rapid follow-up work, as in the Cowles Foundation's econometric contributions or the LK-99, ESP and cold-fusion episodes 80-82”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 86 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berlinguette, C. P., Chiang, Y.-M., Munday, J. N., Schenkel, T., Fork, D. K., Koningstein, R., & Trevithick, M. D.
Affiliations
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CA)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
  • Berlinguette, Curtis P.
  • Trevithick, Matthew D.
Venue
Nature
Published
2019-05-27
Volume
570
Issue
7759
Pages
45-51
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2945763457
Cited by
88
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9
FWCI
1.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geochemistry and Petrology › Cold Fusion and Nuclear Reactions
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Muon and positron interactions and applications
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Hydrogen Storage and Materials
Keywords
cold fusion, reproducibility, scientific skepticism, clean energy, parameter space exploration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review