But that would be interesting in itself.<p>P&amp;N made the PR mistake of calling their process &quot;cold fusion.&quot;<p>If they&#x27;d called it &quot;unexpected heat we can&#x27;t explain&quot; they&#x27;d have encountered <i>much</i> less hostility.<p>Then the question wouldn&#x27;t have been &quot;Where are the neutrons?&quot; but &quot;Can this be replicated?&quot; followed by &quot;Can this be used for energy generation?&quot;<p>Social taint my be true strong a description. But there&#x27;s huge hostility in science to experimental effects that appear to challenge existing theories without <i>also</i> providing a completed new theory that makes predictions and can be falsified. The further away from the mainstream the effects appear, the more hostility they generate.<p>Which is why claiming to have found cold fusion as a result of unreliable experiments and a complete absence of a finished theory was professional suicide - even though there seems to be some kind of phenomenon there. Or at least enough of a phenomenon to be worth investigating.