I think you are mistaking sustaining itself with being able to produce more energy than we put it.
Sustain itself means that once you get the initial reaction going it produces energy as long as it has fuel. We have been capable of doing that for a pretty decent amount of time. Technically ever since we dropped the first hydrogen bomb.
The problem is that we need to put in more energy to start the reaction than we get out of it in the end. Though I think I've heard of at least one fusion reactor that got more energy out than it put in, but only in a short burst of a reaction.
On the other hand, cold fusion, as far as we know it today, can't sustain itself because you the reaction isn't creating enough energy to create additional reactions.
The link you provided me had 0 scientific articles in it. It was just yeah, we saw a slew of people doing it, but no scientific papers, no real evidence.
In the end, I can't see a way to convince you that cold fusion is currently not a thing. Maybe it will be in the future, but it certainly isn't now.
So you denied the numerous references and the GlowStick experiments and claim that there's no evidence of creating more energy than what is put in, off hand without any substance, because "we saw a slew of people doing it" as if this hasn't been demonstrated since 89 and replicated, but you tout that hot fusion despite the billions wasted it has absolutely nothing to show for it.
Again anyone that wants to verify this look at the article posted and the commentary on it and then if you want to see the open source independent studies done search out Glow Stick experiments. This author is clearly in denial and dismissive without concern while applying double standards and talking about fusion as if it was ever demonstrated and the viability of it in 30 years while ridiculing the numerous repeated studies done on the anomalies of cold fusion both in excess heat and fusion of elements, which again are referenced in the article and the comments under it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Give me the link to the open source studies and I'll take them into consideration. So far you've only provided me with essentially marketing posts.
I'm not advocating for fusion energy if you don't understand that. I'm just writing about cool shit I find.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/experiements
http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/10/22/journal-publishes-toyotas-independent-replication-of-mitsubishi-lenr-transmutation/
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
http://jcfrs.org/JCF17/jcf17-abstracts.pdf
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
thank you
I will take a look at these through the weekend
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
https://www.researchgate.net/search?q=LENR
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
And this Discussion which is choke full of references.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43960/is-there-any-reproducible-tested-evidence-for-ni-h-cold-fusion
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit