Dicuss the nature of the Nuclear Fusion experiment and what we learned or could have learned from its failure.Sometimes in formal science, what we...

Nuclear Fusion is when two or more atomic nuclei are fused
to produce a heavier nucleus.  This is accompanied by either a release or the absorption
of a large quantity of energy.  The reverse process is Nuclear
Fission.

Nuclear Fission was the mechanism for the atomic
bomb developed in Los Alamos, New Mexico in the 1940’s (the Manhattan Project). 
Development of Nuclear Fusion atomic weapons (Hydrogen bomb) occurred later on, in the
1950’s.

The “Nuclear Fusion” experiment referred to in your
question was actually called “Cold Fusion”.  Electrochemists Fleishman and Pons in 1989
did a small, tabletop experiment involving electrolysis of heavy water on a palladium
electrode.  The result was the production of excess heat, much greater than expected,
and therefore assumed to be from a new form of nuclear reaction, "cold
fusion".

The two scientists released their preliminary
findings without detailed description of the experiments, and virtually no supporting
data.  The result was a media frenzy, fuled by the hope for a source of cheap and
abundant energy.  Unfortunately, the experiments and results could not be
reproduced.

In 1989 the Department of Energy (DOE) released
its report on cold fusion, concluding that there was not enough evidence of a new
nuclear process to justify serious pursuit.  They did, however, recommend “modest
support” of such research.  Another DOE panel in 2004 arrived at the same
conclusion.

Here is what I believe we have learned from
this failure:

1.  If something is too good to be true, it
probably is not true.

2.  To date, no one has successfully
challenged the first law of thermodynamics…energy cannot created or destroyed. Output is
never greater than input.

3.  In science (as in life) one
seldom if ever gets something for nothing.

4.  A scientific
”discovery” that is announced with fanfare, but without thorough details and supporting
data, should be allocated to the category of “we shall
see”.

5.  Like any complex activity, scientific
experimentation is subject to errors, including errors of concept, design, methodology,
execution and interpretation.

6.  "Science is science", and
results should always be verifiable and reproducible, and not accepted merely on the
reputations of the scientists.