Cold Fusion: Thirty Years Later

David W. Ball


In March 1989, the claim of a revolutionary discovery in nuclear energy production galvanized the scientific community. It turned into a classic case of pathological science—and a textbook example of the self-correcting nature of science.

The quest for controllable nuclear fusion as a societal energy source has been multigenerational, expensive, and slow. The benefits of fusion—including a near-inexhaustible fuel source, relatively mundane and non-polluting products, and significant amounts of energy produced—are balanced by the technical difficulties and equipment involved. Research into this area is so expensive that support from nation-state entities is typically necessary. It goes without saying, then, that any breakthrough in fusion research, especially one that radically simplifies it and lowers its cost, would be a major breakthrough indeed.

Such was the setting thirty years ago when a major breakthrough was announced. What followed is now considered a classic case of how science works—and how science isn’t supposed to work. Here is what happened, what resulted, and how the entire series of events is viewed today.

This article is available to subscribers only.
Subscribe now or log in to read this article.