Thanks to Jonas Matuzas for posting a link to a new article published in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry written by authors at the Nuclear Engineering Center, São Paulo, Brazil.
Title: “Preliminary Survey on Cold Fusion: It’s Not Pathological Science and May Require Revision of Nuclear Theory”
Authors: Ondir Freir Luciano and Alves de Andrade Delvonei
Since 1989 the announcement of “cold fusion” by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann, “cold fusion” field has been surrounded by controversy. After three decades, this field is alive and has produced thousands of publications, most in dedicated periodic and conferences. This work aims at checking whether “cold fusion” fits in pathological science traits. For each type of experiment and year, this work counted the distinct research groups results (success or failure). Experimental results from many research groups suggest that nuclear reactions in solids are more complex than fusion (it is not only fusion) and that they need energy triggers like background radiation, meaning chemical configurations alone do not seem to generate nuclear reactions. Some types of experiments present rising trends (the field does not fit in pathological science model) and have potential to bring disruptive technologies. If confirmed, experimental results will require revisions of accepted nuclear models.
The full text for this journal is not available for free. There are highlights and excerpts at the link above.