P&F were not replicated, so we can safely say they were entirely wrong.
For some reason, their negative result makes some people believe other different kinds of "cold fusion" are more likely. This is not how conditional probability works.
For some reason, their negative result makes some people believe other different kinds of "cold fusion" are more likely. This is not how conditional probability works.
As a demonstration of reproducibility, samples of palladium-nickel-zirconium oxide powder, taken from a single batch of production, were employed in independent parallel test runs at laboratories at Kobe University and Tohoku University. Both laboratories observed sustained excess heat over a period of more than 10 days. The data were qualitatively and quantitatively similar between the two laboratories.
What the whole sorry cold fusion experience shows is that if you have enough people trying to do something, some will get positive results, regardless of whether the phenomenon is actually real. A real tip off is how variable and mutually inconsistent the ephemeral positive results are. This is a sign they are experimental artifacts, not anything significant.
Including, after spending tons of money trying, by P&F themselves.