Cold fusion 2: the story continues

In this second of two linked articles chronicalling the 1989 claim to have produced ''cold fusion'' in the laboratory, an eminent chemist, himself working on the phenomenon, argues that results are valid and worth pursuing. He suggests that the research teams who found negative results failed to understand the surface chemistry and electrode kinetics involved. Being mainly led by physicists, they applied inappropriate collision equations and sought neutron emission as evidence of nuclear fusion. In addition, such experiment may take up to twelve weeks to produce results and few opponents understood this. The author also explores the political and economic consequences for physicists to admit that their hugely expensive large machines had failed, where an extremely cheap device, designed by chemists had succeeded. It is suggested that reproducibility is improving and that, when patent-rules permit the original workers to publish fully, the evidence for cold fusion will be overwhelming. (UK)