Cold fusion is a suggested type of nuclear reaction that might happen at or close to room temperature. This would be very different from "hot" fusion, which happens naturally in stars, is used in hydrogen bombs, and is tested in early fusion reactors. Hot fusion requires temperatures of millions of degrees. Cold fusion is also different from muon-catalyzed fusion. At present, there is no accepted scientific theory that explains how cold fusion could occur.
In 1989, two scientists at the University of Utah, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, claimed their equipment, which used heavy water, produced unusual heat ("excess heat") that they said could only be explained by nuclear processes. They also reported detecting small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, such as neutrons and tritium. These are created when deuterium, found in heavy water, fuses. The experiment involved using electrolysis on heavy water near a palladium electrode. The results received widespread media attention and sparked hope for a new, inexpensive energy source. Neutrons and tritium are also found in tiny amounts in nature, produced by interactions with cosmic rays and radioactive decay in the atmosphere and Earth.
Many scientists tried to repeat the experiment using the limited information available. Confidence in the claims dropped after repeated failures to reproduce the results, retractions of earlier claims, and the discovery of flaws in the original study. By late 1989, most scientists no longer believed cold fusion was valid, and it became known as "pathological science." In 1989, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) concluded that the reported excess heat did not prove a useful energy source and refused to fund cold fusion research. A second DOE review in 2004, which examined new studies, reached the same conclusion and also did not fund cold fusion. Today, because research on cold fusion is rarely published in major scientific journals, it does not undergo the same level of expert review as other scientific work.
Some interest in cold fusion has continued over the years. For example, a 2019 study in the journal Nature described a failed attempt to replicate cold fusion using funding from Google. A small group of researchers still studies it, often using terms like low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) or condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS).
History
Nuclear fusion usually happens at very high temperatures, such as tens of millions of degrees. This is called "thermonuclear fusion." Since the 1920s, scientists have wondered if fusion could occur at much lower temperatures by using a metal to help hydrogen atoms combine. In 1989, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, a top electrochemist, claimed they had observed this process, called "cold fusion." Their discovery caused excitement in the media, but most scientists later said their results could not be repeated and were incorrect. Despite this, a small group of researchers continues to study cold fusion, believing their experiments show it is possible.
Palladium's ability to absorb hydrogen was known as early as the 19th century by Thomas Graham. In the late 1920s, scientists Friedrich Paneth and Kurt Peters reported that hydrogen could change into helium when absorbed by finely divided palladium at room temperature. However, they later said their results were incorrect because the helium they measured came from the air. In 1927, Swedish scientist John Tandberg claimed he fused hydrogen into helium using an electrolytic cell with palladium electrodes. He applied for a patent to produce helium and energy but was denied after others questioned his findings. After deuterium was discovered in 1932, Tandberg continued experiments with heavy water. His final experiments were similar to those of Pons and Fleischmann, though they were unaware of his work.
The term "cold fusion" first appeared in 1956 in a New York Times article about Luis Alvarez's work on muon-catalyzed fusion. In 1986, Paul Palmer and Steven Jones of Brigham Young University used the term to describe "geo-fusion," the idea that fusion might happen in planetary cores. Jones had previously coined the term "piezonuclear fusion" in a 1985 paper.
The most famous cold fusion claims came from Pons and Fleischmann in 1989. At first, scientists were interested, but nuclear physicists later questioned their results. Pons and Fleischmann never withdrew their claims but moved their research to France after the controversy. They believed that using electrolysis to compress deuterium in palladium might cause fusion. They tested this by running experiments with a palladium cathode and heavy water in a calorimeter, a device that measures heat. Most of the time, the heat produced matched the energy input, but sometimes the temperature rose suddenly to about 50°C without more energy being added. These high-temperature phases lasted for days and repeated in some experiments.
In 1988, Pons and Fleischmann asked the U.S. Department of Energy for funding. They had previously used their own money to pay for experiments. Their proposal was reviewed by scientists, including Steven Jones, who studied muon-catalyzed fusion. Jones had written about "cold nuclear fusion" in Scientific American in 1987. Pons and Fleischmann and Jones shared research, but their goals differed. Pons and Fleischmann focused on energy production, while Jones studied neutron flux. They agreed to publish results together but later disagreed.
In March 1989, both teams planned to publish their findings. However, Pons and Fleischmann, pressured by the University of Utah, held a press conference on March 23 instead of waiting for a joint publication. They claimed their work would be published in Nature but submitted their paper to another journal. Jones sent his paper to Nature after the press conference.
The announcement received widespread media and scientific attention. At the time, people were concerned about energy crises, environmental issues, and the dangers of nuclear power. Pons and Fleischmann claimed cold fusion could solve these problems by providing clean, limitless energy from seawater. They said their results had been tested many times and were reliable. Fleischmann stated in a press release that their discovery could lead to new technologies for generating heat and power, but more research was needed.
Later research
样的
</think>
In 1991, a person who supported cold fusion research estimated that about 600 scientists were still working on the topic. After 1991, cold fusion research continued, but it became less well-known. Groups that studied cold fusion had more trouble getting public money and keeping their research programs going. These small groups of researchers kept working on experiments using the methods developed by Fleischmann and Pons, even though the larger scientific community did not support their work. In 2004, the Boston Globe estimated that only 100 to 200 researchers were still working in the field, and many of them had problems with their careers and reputations. After the main controversy involving Pons and Fleischmann was over, cold fusion research was supported by private and small government funding in the United States, Italy, Japan, and India. For example, a report in Nature in May 2019 said that Google had spent about $10 million on cold fusion research. Scientists at well-known research labs, such as MIT and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, worked for several years to develop experimental methods to re-evaluate cold fusion with high scientific standards. Their conclusion was that no cold fusion had been found.
In 2021, after Nature published findings in 2019 that suggested some unusual results that might be related to fusion, scientists at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division, announced that they had formed a group of scientists from the Navy, Army, and National Institute of Standards and Technology to study the topic again. Most researchers have had trouble publishing their work in major scientific journals. The remaining researchers often use different names for their field, such as Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR), Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR), Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS), or Lattice Enabled Nuclear Reactions. This is because they want to avoid the negative ideas that are often connected with the term "cold fusion." These new names help avoid making strong claims, such as suggesting that fusion is actually happening.
Researchers who continue their studies say that the mistakes in the original announcement are the main reason the topic is not widely accepted. They also say that they have a hard time getting funding and publishing in top scientific journals. University researchers often avoid studying cold fusion because they might be criticized by their colleagues and risk their careers. In 1994, David Goodstein, a physics professor at Caltech, encouraged more attention from mainstream scientists and described cold fusion as:
Since 1989, United States Navy researchers at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego have studied cold fusion. In 2002, they published a two-volume report titled "Thermal and nuclear aspects of the Pd/D2O system," asking for more funding. This and other published papers led to a 2004 review by the Department of Energy (DOE).
In August 2003, the U.S. Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, ordered the DOE to conduct a second review of the field. This happened because of a letter sent in April 2003 by Peter L. Hagelstein from MIT, and the publication of many new papers, including those from the Italian ENEA and others at the 2003 International Cold Fusion Conference, and a two-volume book by U.S. SPAWAR in 2002. Cold fusion researchers were asked to prepare a report on all the evidence since the 1989 review. The report was released in 2004. The reviewers were "split approximately evenly" on whether the experiments had produced heat as a form of energy, but most reviewers, even those who accepted the evidence for extra energy production, said that the results were not repeatable, the effects had not improved in over a decade, and many of the experiments were not well documented. In summary, the reviewers said that cold fusion evidence was still not convincing 15 years later and did not recommend a federal research program. They only suggested that agencies consider funding individual well-planned studies in specific areas where research "could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field." They summarized their conclusions as follows:
— Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, U.S. Department of Energy, December 2004
Cold fusion researchers said the report was positive because it showed they were being treated like normal scientists, and it increased interest in the field and led to more funding for cold fusion research. However, in a 2009 BBC article on a meeting about cold fusion, particle physicist Frank Close said that the same problems that affected the original cold fusion announcement were still happening: results from studies are still not being independently verified, and some unexplained events are still being called "cold fusion" even if they are not, just to get attention from the media.
In February 2012, Sidney Kimmel, a wealthy businessman, decided to invest $5.5 million in the University of Missouri to create the Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance (SKINR) after being convinced by a 2009 interview with physicist Robert Duncan on the U.S. news show 60 Minutes. The money was meant to support research on how hydrogen interacts with metals like palladium, nickel, or platinum under extreme conditions. In March 2013, Graham K. Hubler, a nuclear physicist who worked for the Naval Research Laboratory for 40 years, became the director of SKINR. One of the projects at SKINR is to repeat a 1991 experiment in which a professor involved in the project, Mark Prelas, said that bursts of millions of neutrons per second were recorded, but the research was stopped because "his research account had been frozen." He claims that the new experiment has already seen "neutron emissions at similar levels to the 1991 observation."
In May 2016, the United States House Committee on Armed Services, in its report on the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, told the Secretary of Defense to "provide a briefing on the military utility of recent U.S. industrial base LENR advancements to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 22, 2016."
Since the Fleischmann and Pons announcement, the Italian national agency for new technologies, energy, and sustainable economic development (ENEA) has supported Franco Scaramuzzi's research on whether excess heat can be measured from metals filled with deuterium gas. This research is spread across ENEA departments, CNR laboratories, INFN, universities, and industrial labs in Italy, where the group continues to try to achieve reliable reproducibility (i.e., making the phenomenon happen consistently in every cell and within a certain time frame). In 2006–2007, ENEA started a research program that claimed to have found up to 500 percent more energy than expected, and in 2009, ENEA hosted the 15th cold fusion conference.
Between 1992 and 1997, Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry funded a "New Hydrogen Energy (NHE)" program worth $20 million to research cold fusion. When the program ended in 1997, the director and former supporter of cold fusion research, Hideo Ikegami, said, "We couldn't achieve what was first claimed in terms of cold fusion. (…) We can't find any reason to propose more money for the coming year or for the future." In 1999, the Japan C-F Research Society was formed to support independent cold fusion research in Japan. The society holds annual meetings. Perhaps the most famous Japanese cold fusion researcher was Yoshiaki Arata, from Osaka University, who claimed in a demonstration to…
Reported results
Cold fusion experiments often use:
• a metal, such as palladium or nickel, in forms like solid, thin layers, or powder; and
• deuterium, hydrogen, or both, in forms like water, gas, or plasma.
Electrolysis cells can be open or closed. In open cells, gas products from the reaction are allowed to leave. In closed cells, the products are collected, such as by combining them in a different part of the system. These experiments aim to reach a steady state, where the liquid used is replaced regularly. Some experiments also test for heat after the electricity is turned off, known as "heat-after-death" experiments.
The simplest cold fusion setup includes two electrodes placed in a solution with palladium and heavy water. The electrodes are connected to a power source, allowing electricity to flow through the solution. Even when unusual heat is reported, it may take weeks to appear, a time called the "loading time," which is how long it takes for the palladium electrode to fill with hydrogen.
Early experiments by Fleischmann and Pons reported findings like helium, neutron radiation, and tritium, but these results could not be reliably repeated. Neutron radiation was sometimes detected, but at very low levels, similar to normal background levels, and not enough to confirm nuclear reactions.
Excess heat is measured by comparing energy input and output. Normally, these match within the experiment's accuracy. In some experiments, like those by Fleischmann and Pons, heat increased without more electricity, suggesting unexplained energy. However, other researchers could not reliably reproduce these results. Later analysis showed that the heat in their original study was estimated, not directly measured.
Most researchers stopped studying cold fusion after experiments failed to produce consistent results, excess heat, or neutrons. In 1993, Fleischmann reported "heat-after-death" experiments, where heat was measured after electricity was turned off. This method has been used in later cold fusion claims.
Nuclear reactions usually produce particles that can be observed. Fleischmann and Pons claimed to detect neutrons and tritium, but the levels were too low to match predictions for nuclear reactions. In 2009, researchers reported detecting energetic neutrons, but without detailed data, these claims could not be confirmed.
Some researchers have found traces of elements like calcium, titanium, and iron in experiments, but these findings are not widely accepted. A 2004 report to the U.S. Department of Energy suggested that deuterium-loaded materials might detect fusion products, but the evidence was inconclusive.
Critics of cold fusion pointed out that deuteron-deuteron fusion should produce gamma rays, which were not observed. Later claims include detecting X-rays, helium, neutrons, and changes in atomic structure. However, the 2004 report criticized the lack of a strong scientific explanation for the absence of gamma rays.
Proposed mechanisms
Scientists who study cold fusion do not agree on a single explanation for how it works. One idea suggests that hydrogen and some of its forms can be taken into certain solid materials, like palladium hydride, at very high levels. This process increases the pressure inside the material, which brings hydrogen atoms closer together. However, this reduced distance is not enough to produce the high fusion rates observed in early experiments, which were ten times higher. Another idea proposes that having more hydrogen inside the palladium and a weaker energy barrier might allow fusion to occur at lower temperatures than predicted by Coulomb's law. Scientists also suggested that electrons in the palladium material might shield hydrogen nuclei from each other, but a 2004 commission from the U.S. Department of Energy found these theories unconvincing and not aligned with current scientific understanding.
Criticism
Criticism of cold fusion claims usually focuses on two main points: either pointing out that fusion reactions are unlikely to occur during electrolysis experiments, or questioning the accuracy of measurements showing extra heat. Scientists believe known fusion reactions cannot explain the reported excess heat and related claims for several reasons.
Nuclei are positively charged and naturally repel each other. Without a special catalyst, such as a muon, very high energy is needed to overcome this repulsion. Based on known fusion rates, the chance of fusion happening at room temperature without a catalyst is extremely low—50 times less likely than needed to explain the reported heat. In muon-catalyzed fusion, the presence of a muon brings deuterium nuclei closer together, increasing fusion rates. However, deuterium inside a palladium lattice is farther apart than in gas, which should reduce, not increase, fusion reactions.
In the 1920s, scientists Paneth and Peters discovered that palladium can absorb large amounts of hydrogen gas, storing it under high pressure. They thought this might help increase fusion rates by loading palladium with hydrogen. Later, Tandberg used electrolysis to force deuterium into palladium rods, an approach similar to the experiments later conducted by Fleischmann and Pons. These researchers hoped hydrogen nuclei would fuse to form helium, which was needed for airships, but no evidence of helium or increased fusion was found.
Geologist Palmer once believed helium-3 found in Earth’s crust might come from fusion reactions inside materials like nickel or palladium. This idea led Steven Jones and his team to conduct experiments similar to Fleischmann and Pons in 1986, using palladium electrodes in heavy water. Fleischmann and Pons also believed fusion could occur but miscalculated the pressure inside their cells. They thought the pressure was 10 atmospheres, but experiments showed the actual pressure was much higher, between 10,000 and 20,000 atmospheres. John R. Huizenga later noted they had misunderstood a scientific equation, leading to incorrect assumptions about how close deuterium nuclei could get.
Conventional fusion of deuterium happens in two steps, forming an unstable intermediate. Experiments show three possible ways this intermediate can decay, with different probabilities for each path. Only one in a million intermediates follows the third path, making its products rare. This matches predictions from the Bohr model. If 1 watt of energy were produced from 2.2575 × 10 deuteron fusions per second, the expected byproducts—neutrons and tritium—should be easily detected. However, some researchers reported helium production without finding these byproducts, which would require the third decay path to be much more common than observed. These findings contradict known probabilities and also lack evidence of gamma rays, which should appear if the third path were involved.
The known rate of decay and the spacing between atoms in a metal make it unclear how the energy from fusion could transfer to the metal lattice without producing measurable radiation. Experiments also show that fusion rates remain stable across different energy levels, with only small changes due to pressure or chemical conditions. Early theories suggested a process called the Oppenheimer–Phillips process might explain these changes, but it was too weak to account for the observed results.
Cold fusion experiments typically use an energy source, a platinum group electrode, deuterium or hydrogen, a device to measure heat, and sometimes detectors for byproducts like helium or neutrons. Critics argue that these setups have flaws, and no consistent results have been reproduced. Some researchers claim that inconsistent results might stem from poor quality control in materials or hydrogen loading. Others point to errors in how heat and energy were measured.
In 1989, after Fleischmann and Pons announced their findings, many groups tried to replicate their experiment but failed. A few groups, such as one in India and another at Texas A&M University, reported success in creating tritium. In 1990, a researcher at the University of Minnesota claimed to have observed excess heat. However, even these groups found that only some of their experiments worked, while others using the same setup did not. Over time, researchers claimed some successes but struggled to achieve reliable results. Reproducibility is a key part of scientific research, and its lack led most scientists to doubt the validity of positive results.
A 2004 report by the U.S. Department of Energy noted that cold fusion researchers, such as McKubre and ENEA, suggested that cells with lower deuterium-to-palladium ratios might not produce excess heat. Many failed experiments from the 1989–1990 period did not report these ratios, which some scientists proposed as a reason for inconsistent results. Achieving the correct ratio is difficult, and some palladium batches crack under pressure, allowing deuterium to escape. Fleischmann and Pons never shared the exact ratios in their cells, and by 2002, the specific palladium they used was no longer available, complicating further studies.
Some research groups initially claimed to replicate Fleischmann and Pons’ results but later retracted their findings, offering alternative explanations. For example, a team at Georgia Tech found problems with their neutron detector, and Texas A&M discovered faulty wiring in their equipment.
Publications
In 1989, the ISI listed cold fusion as the scientific topic with the most published papers among all fields. Julian Schwinger, a Nobel Prize winner, supported cold fusion in the fall of 1989, even though many scientists had become critical of early reports about it. Schwinger tried to publish a paper titled "Cold Fusion: A Hypothesis" in Physical Review Letters, but the experts who reviewed it strongly rejected it. This rejection upset Schwinger, and he left the American Physical Society in protest.
After 1990, the number of cold fusion papers dropped sharply. Two main reasons caused this: scientists stopped working in the field, and journal editors refused to review new papers. Because of this, cold fusion no longer appeared on the ISI charts. Researchers who found negative results stopped studying the topic, while those who continued publishing were often ignored. A 1993 paper in Physics Letters A was the last published by Fleischmann. This paper was one of the final works by Fleischmann to be challenged by a cold fusion skeptic.
In 1990, the Journal of Fusion Technology began regularly publishing cold fusion papers, printing over a dozen each year. This gave researchers a mainstream place to share their work. However, when the editor-in-chief, George H. Miley, retired in 2001, the journal stopped accepting new cold fusion papers. This event showed how important supportive and influential people are for publishing cold fusion research in certain journals.
The decline in cold fusion publications has been called a "failed information epidemic." Initially, support for cold fusion grew rapidly, with about half of scientists believing in the theory. However, interest later dropped, leaving only a small group of supporters. This pattern is seen in "pathological science," which lacks shared ideas and methods. Without common goals, researchers work alone, making it harder to move toward normal scientific practices.
Cold fusion research continued in some journals, such as Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry and Il Nuovo Cimento. Papers also appeared in Journal of Physical Chemistry, Physics Letters A, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, and several Japanese and Russian journals. Starting in 2005, Naturwissenschaften published cold fusion papers. In 2009, the journal added a cold fusion researcher to its editorial board. In 2015, Current Science, an Indian journal, published a special section focused on cold fusion.
In the 1990s, groups that continued researching cold fusion and their supporters created non-peer-reviewed publications, such as Fusion Facts, Cold Fusion Magazine, Infinite Energy Magazine, and New Energy Times. These magazines covered cold fusion and other energy topics ignored by traditional journals. The internet later became a major tool for cold fusion researchers to share their work and communicate with others.
Conferences
Cold fusion researchers faced challenges for many years in getting their work accepted at major scientific meetings. This led to the creation of their own conferences. The first International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF) was held in 1990 and has occurred every 12 to 18 months since. At early conferences, some attendees avoided criticizing papers or presentations for fear of giving critics outside the field more arguments, which allowed unqualified researchers to spread ideas and made it harder to do serious science. Skeptics and critics stopped attending these conferences, except for Douglas Morrison, who passed away in 2001. In 2004, the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS) was formed, and the conference was renamed the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. This change was explained in later research, but the original name was used again in 2008. Cold fusion research is sometimes called "low-energy nuclear reactions" (LENR) by supporters. However, sociologist Bart Simon noted that the term "cold fusion" still helps create a shared identity for the field.
Since 2006, the American Physical Society (APS) has included cold fusion discussions at its meetings every six months. This does not mean the society is less skeptical. Since 2007, the American Chemical Society (ACS) has also included invited symposiums on cold fusion. An ACS program chair, Gopal Coimbatore, stated that without a proper forum, the topic would not be discussed. He added, "With the world facing an energy crisis, it is worth exploring all possibilities."
At an ACS meeting from March 22–25, 2009, a four-day symposium was held to mark the 20th anniversary of cold fusion’s announcement. Researchers from the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) reported detecting energetic neutrons using heavy water electrolysis and a CR-39 detector. This result was previously published in Naturwissenschaften. The researchers claim the neutrons suggest nuclear reactions occurred. However, without detailed data on the number, energy, and timing of the neutrons, and without ruling out other possible causes, the scientific community is unlikely to accept this conclusion.
Patents
It is not clear how the University of Utah acted, but it seems the university pushed the 23 March 1989 announcement by Fleischmann and Pons to claim priority over their discovery and its patents before a joint publication with Jones. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) announced on 12 April 1989 that it had applied for its own patents based on theoretical work by one of its researchers, Peter L. Hagelstein, who sent papers to journals between 5 and 12 April. An MIT graduate student applied for a patent, but it was reportedly rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in part because of a 1989 experiment by MIT’s Plasma Fusion Center that showed negative results. On 2 December 1993, the University of Utah licensed all its cold fusion patents to ENECO, a new company formed to profit from cold fusion discoveries. In March 1998, the university said it would no longer defend its patents.
The USPTO now refuses to grant patents for cold fusion. Esther Kepplinger, the deputy commissioner of patents in 2004, stated that this decision uses the same reasoning as with perpetual motion machines: they do not work. Patent applications must prove that an invention is "useful," which depends on the invention’s ability to function. USPTO rejections based only on an invention being "inoperative" are rare, as such rejections require proof that the invention cannot work at all. However, in 2000, a cold fusion patent rejection was upheld by a Federal Court because the inventor could not prove the invention’s usefulness.
A U.S. patent might still be granted if it is renamed to avoid direct ties to cold fusion, but this strategy has had limited success. Legal rules often require mentioning Fleischmann and Pons’ research, which alerts patent reviewers to the connection with cold fusion. David Voss noted in 1999 that some patents resembling cold fusion processes have been granted by the USPTO. One inventor had his applications initially rejected by nuclear science experts but later revised the patents to focus on electrochemical parts, which were reviewed by electrochemistry experts who approved them. The inventor claimed the process involved "new nuclear physics" unrelated to cold fusion. In 2004, Melvin Miles was granted a patent for a cold fusion device. In 2007, he removed all references to "cold fusion" from the patent description to avoid rejection.
At least one patent related to cold fusion has been granted by the European Patent Office.
A patent legally prevents others from using or benefiting from an invention. However, the public often sees a patent as a sign of approval. A holder of three cold fusion patents stated that the patents were valuable and helped secure investments.
Cultural references
In 1990, a comedy film titled Bullseye!, starring Michael Caine and Roger Moore, mentioned the Fleischmann and Pons experiment. The movie’s story followed fraudsters trying to steal scientists’ supposed discoveries. However, the film was not well received and was called "appallingly unfunny" by critics.
In Undead Science, sociologist Bart Simon discusses how cold fusion appears in popular culture. He explains that some scientists use the term "cold fusion" to describe exaggerated claims without proof, and science ethics courses use it as an example of "pathological science." Cold fusion has also appeared in jokes on TV shows like Murphy Brown and The Simpsons. It was later used as a name for a software product, Adobe ColdFusion, and a brand of protein bars (Cold Fusion Foods). Additionally, it was used in advertising, such as a 1995 Pepsi Max ad, as a term for impossible science.
The 1996 action-adventure film Chain Reaction features a plot based on a theoretical version of cold fusion. The 1997 action-adventure film The Saint follows a story similar to Fleischmann and Pons’ experiment but ends differently. In Undead Science, Simon suggests that the film may have influenced public opinion, making cold fusion seem more like science fiction.
An episode of the sci-fi TV series Outer Limits, which aired on June 26, 1998, involves an ex-student returning to his university with bombs made using cold fusion. He claims he will not detonate them unless authorities execute five people he dislikes. Most scientists believe cold fusion is impossible, so he proves his point by remotely detonating a smaller bomb on campus.
In the 2000 sci-fi TV drama Life Force, the tenth episode ("Paradise Island") focuses on cold fusion. It follows eccentric scientist Hepzibah McKinley, who believes she has perfected cold fusion based on her father’s unfinished research. The episode examines the potential benefits of cold fusion in a post-apocalyptic world facing global warming.
In the 2023 video game Atomic Heart, cold fusion is the main reason for most technological advances. The video game and TV series Fallout also use cold fusion as a major energy source.