<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- START briefs feed. Hand-maintained like sitemap.xml: add an <item> per published brief, newest first. -->
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>START — Briefs</title>
    <link>https://startsci.org/briefs</link>
    <description>Peer-reviewed research translated into plain language, with every source attached. Research, transferred faithfully.</description>
    <language>en</language>
    <atom:link href="https://startsci.org/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Google re-tested cold fusion for four years. Here's what it found</title>
      <link>https://startsci.org/briefs/cold-fusion-cold-case</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://startsci.org/briefs/cold-fusion-cold-case</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>A quietly funded program put the most famous failed claim in modern science through rigorous, multi-lab testing. It found no fusion — and made a careful case for why the search still paid off. Based on Berlinguette et al., Nature 570 (2019). [Editorial pilot]</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>What the "tabletop fusion reactor" actually did</title>
      <link>https://startsci.org/briefs/thunderbird-fusion</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://startsci.org/briefs/thunderbird-fusion</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>A benchtop experiment at UBC raised fusion rates 15% using ordinary electrochemistry. That's genuinely useful — and much smaller than the headlines suggested. Based on the Berlinguette group's Nature 2025 paper. [Editorial pilot]</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
