Jump to content

Talk:Cold fusion: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→vote: add
Line 554: Line 554:


*'''Oppose''' as POVFORK. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 16:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as POVFORK. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 16:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

* 84.* is still canvassing: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brian_Josephson&diff=prev&oldid=547070265]. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 10:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


===I'm not making it obvious enough?===
===I'm not making it obvious enough?===

Revision as of 10:38, 28 March 2013

This article was the subject of mediation during 2009 at User_talk:Cryptic C62/Cold fusion.
Former featured articleCold fusion is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 16, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
January 6, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
June 3, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 7, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 19, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 26, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
May 28, 2008Good article nomineeListed
November 23, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Former featured article

Fleischmann and Pons did not assert

no edit here, just talk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Statements in the article saying that Fleischmann and Pons "asserted (the anomalous heat) would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes" and "never retracted their claims, but moved their research program to France after the controversy erupted" imply that they were asserting the reality of cold fusion, but as this KSLTV Interview makes plain, they were much more measured and merely raised it as a possibility. The anomalous heat itself was probably an objective fact, and is perhaps explainable by Widom-Larsen theory. Silent Key (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'll see much agreement on "was probably an objective fact" as applied to "anomalous heat". Substitute "observation" or "measurement" for "fact" and you might get agreement. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they claimed it very clearly in a 1990 paper: "The total specific energy output during the bursts as well as the total specific energy output of fully charged electrodes subjected to prolonged polarization (5–50 MJ cm−3) is 102–103 times larger than the enthalpy of reaction of chemical processes. (...) The magnitude of the excess enthalpy was so large (...) that it is not possible to ascribe this enthalpy release to any chemical process. [1,3] The most surprising feature of these results (apart from the fact that nuclear processes can be induced at all in this way!) is that the enthalpy release is not due to either of the well established fusion reactions (...) speculations. The preliminary note was to have been published under the title “Electrochemically Induced Fusion of Deuterium?” but the all important question mark was omitted. It is our view that there can be little doubt that one must invoke nuclear processes to account for the magnitudes of the enthalpy releases, although the nature of these processes is an open question at this stage. It is hardly tenable that (..) nor that tritium generation can be accounted for by any but nuclear processes. It should be apparent to unbiased readers that, contrary to what has been stated frequently, we did not in fact make any specific suggestions on this score in our first publication. Certainly, we suggested that these processes must be due to highly compressed deuterons and that these might be located at multiply occupied octahedral sites in the lattice. Palladium has a relatively low cohesive strength so that these sites will distort to allow such multiple occupancy at high deuteron activities (...) We note finally that the deuterons in the lattice are similar to low ion temperature plasmas (~ 1 eV) and that fusion of low energy deuterons was already observed [27,28] in (ND4)2SO4 targets at the time of the discovery of the major nuclear reaction paths of deuterium [4] (called diplogen at that time). It appears that this fact has been forgotten by the scientific community as has been the evident induction of fusion in high density, low ion temperature quiescent deuterium gas plasmas generated and maintained in magnetic mirror devices by means of electron cyclotron resonance [29]. Deuterons in the Pd host lattice clearly can be regarded as an example of very high density low ion temperature plasmas; the fate of the nuclear reaction(s) in this case is evidently markedly modified by the presence of the host lattice. "[2] (you can google the title to get the full text)
They say that they didn't make the nuclear claim in their first publication[3], which is correctly true since they said "In view of the very high compression and mobility of the dissolved species there must therefore be a significant number of close collisions and one can pose the question: would nuclear fusion of D+ such as (...) and (...) be feasible under these conditions?".
But I personally find this to be deceiving and self-serving since:
a) their first publication was titled "Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium", and
b) they had clearly and repeatedly made the claim in their original press conference: "(Pons) basically we’ve established a sustained nuclear fusion reaction by means – by means which are considerably simpler than conventional techniques. (...) Deuterium, which is a component of heavy water is driven into a metal rod similar (...) to such an extent that fusion between these components, these deuterons in heavy water, are fused to from a single new atom. (...) (Fleischmann) and under those circumstances we have found the conditions where fusion takes place and can be sustained indefinitely. (...) (Pons) the heat that we then measure can only be accounted for by – nuclear reactions. The – the heat is so intense that it cannot be explained by any chemical process that – is known. The other evidence is of course that we – have direct measurements of neutrons by measuring the – gamma radiation (...) Well we’ve been concerned primarily with the effect – the observation of the – fusion event. I would think that it would be reasonable within a short number of years to build a fully operational device (...) . I mean this might be a small scale application – the big fusion – the big tokamaks might be the – the answer for the large scale generation. (audience member) could you tell why there is such a difference – the basic theory behind why we have to use million of degrees in order to have fusion reactions is to overcome the highly repulsive forces between nuclei – what is the difference in the case of the experiments that you are doing? (Fleischmann) you achieve a very high compression (...) and it is that, we believe, which is the crucial factor in achieving fusion at room temperature. (Pons) Well, it’s well known that the original nuclear fusion reactions are generated by the neutron going into the water solution that was cooling the cell and reacting with a hydrogen, attached to a water, and that reaction – gives up a deuterium and – (...) (Peterson) that’s one atmosphere to the 27th power, then fusion occurs, out of that comes one or two new elements of less mass (Fleischmann) the generation – rate of generation of tritium and the rate of generation of helium-3 is only one-billionth of what you would expect if the fusion reactions were those experienced in high energy physics. (Hawkins) What we have here is an experimental setup for the fusion reactor that had been discussed earlier today. (...) and here on this side we have three of our electrochemical cells where the fusion is taking place. (...) a temperature bath where we [inaudible] fusion processes (...) and hence how much is generated due to the fusion source. (...) The electrochemical cells that are doing our fusion process reaction inside is thermal chemistry. (...) –and then calculate how much fusion is going on.." press conference transcript. They also insist that neutrons and gamma rays are proof that some sort of nuclear fusion is going on, it's just a different type if nuclear fusion.
To his credit, Fleischmann did add caveats in the press conference, pity that it was followed by more promises that the experiment was going to give results in a short time, like: "I would emphasize that it is absolutely essential to establish a science base, as widely as possible, as correctly as possible, to challenge our findings, to extend our findings. Having established that, you have to, of course, consider all the engineering implications. But it does seem that there is here a possibility of realizing sustained fusion in a relatively inexpensive – with a relatively inexpensive device, which could be – brought to some sort of successful conclusion fairly early on."
And, of course, they never issued any retraction. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ LeadSongDog: I'd get enough agreement.

@ Enric Naval: You seem to have misunderstood. Nobody denies that they "asserted (the anomalous heat) would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes". I'm objecting to the fact that this statement is packaged with the later statement "never retracted their claims...", with both these statements being placed in an article titled "cold fusion", the implication being that they should have retracted an assertion about cold fusion. "Nuclear processes" is not a synonym of "cold fusion". Their formal statements in the academic literature were properly cautious, and mention of fusion was suggestive not assertive, so there was nothing to retract there. And in the press conference they were informally stating their personal opinion in response to questions, so no retraction was necessary there either, just as Michio Kaku isn't expected to issue retractions for his constant speculations. Silent Key (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear. That Anderson article says nothing about excess heat being a fact. Indeed it says: "Yet a nagging question persisted: If the contraptions really were putting out more energy than they took in, what could be responsible?" (my emphasis). LeadSongDog come howl! 14:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And without your emprhases it was: "Yet a nagging question persisted: If the contraptions really were putting out more energy than they took in, what could be responsible?" 84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. So where's the support in that article for "was probably an objective fact"? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The support in that article is the words. That's because the words tell you that a new theory of physics - Widom-Larsen Theory - predicts that an experimental set-up of the kind that Fleischmann and Pons used could indeed produce heat by a nuclear process, and that there is experimental support for this theory in observations of neutrons from thunderstorms. The words also tell you that the theory has motivated a NASA-CERN tie-in to research it. So Fleischmann's and Pons's claim that the heat was an objective fact, though still far from proven, is no longer improbable. Ergo, it's probable. Silent Key (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Widow-Larsen theory makes a few assumptions about atom behaviour that contradict current experimental results (the processes described by the theory have never been observed outside the walled garden of cold fusion experiments, and inside it they never happened in a reliably replicable way). This is what the NASA University of Missouri project is trying to achieve: a validation of an untested theory. If it gets validated, then a lot of experiments will have to be re-tested. We'll have to find an explanation for why the Widom-Larsen theory was never observed in all these decades. Heck, the structure of electrons, protons and neutrons will have to be examined because there is no way it can happen with our current understanding of them, see P. Thierberger "The transition from Cold Fusion to Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) - Out of the frying pan into the fire". The whole thing is based on a series of assumptions that don't fit current behaviour of experiments. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps SK is using a novel definition of "objective fact", but to most people the term means something that can be observed, measured, and reliably quantified in a way that is independent of theoretical models, religious ideologies, or other systems of thought. So the only "objective fact" that is based in the words is that the words exist. Even if we took the words as being reliable and accurate, they would only establish that the W-L theory exists, not that the theory correctly reflects the behavior of physical systems observed in real-world experiments designed to test the theory. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ LeadSongDog: With respect, I'll try to get this into your cranium again. From the outset I've used important qualifier words - "probably", "probable", "perhaps", "could", "claim", "far from proven" - to show that it was NOT the same as a straightforward, uncontroversial case of “objective fact”. But you insist on ignoring those qualifiers each and every time I use them. That's how you're arriving at a "novel definition".

@ Enric Naval: But that's just it - there ARE scientists who've been saying for a quarter of a century that they HAVE observed it, even without the thunderstorm neutrons evidence that you strangely passed over. That's why W&L felt it necessary to theorise about it, and why NASA (yes, that really is NASA, as this NASA presentation proves) and CERN scientists are testing it. The article you cite contains the statement: "Any new theory is verified or falsified by predicting new results. If the new results are actually observed then we in fact have a valid theory. If not, it is back to the drawing board." The thunderstorm neutrons ARE the new results, so you're just making my point for me. Silent Key (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not NASA. That's Zawodny, a scientist who works at NASA. He had to explain that the video didn't represent NASA's opinion and he didn't think that cold fusion was proven. This was covered in Forbes for example. He does think that Widom-Larsen is "likely correct", but he doesn't say that it's proven.
This sort if misrepresentation keeps happening in this topic. Advocates distort the original sources to fit their purposes, and good faith people are led to believe that wikipedia is being unfair. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SK, my cranium is not having any difficulty understanding your error. You have made your own assessment that "The anomalous heat itself was probably an objective fact, and is perhaps explainable by Widom-Larsen theory" but you have offered no source that actually backs up your assessment, either as to probability or objective factuality. That is what we refer to as wp:Original research. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., take me to arbitration. We will see if the administrators share your opinion that I've broken the rules of Wikipedia by saying on a talk page, "The anomalous heat itself was probably an objective fact, and is perhaps explainable by Widom-Larsen theory". Silent Key (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me. I thought that you were proposing an edit to articlespace, rather than just talking. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Walk your talk: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Silent Key (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of NASA

I believe these are both new over the past two weeks:

Observer Sem (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some scientists at NASA think that cold fusion is worth researching. Some scientists managed to hide some research inside research programs that were focused in something else (someone posted in this page NASA's research budget, and one of the programs had a bullet with a description that fitted cold fusion, maybe a program for space propulsion) The problem is, NASA is not allocating any funding for any dedicated program. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that. The Langley Research Center (not "NASA" in general, just this center) has had a "LENR" program going on for 3.5 years[4], and it needs to be added under Cold_fusion#Subsequent_research. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about? They have not "managed to hide some research inside research programs that were focused in something else", it's not "just this center", and it's not "3.5 years".
Here's another document: LENR at GRC - NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio.
The document makes reference to Fleischmann and Pons, and states that way back in 1989 NASA successfully replicated their deuterium-palladium experiment:
"Previous NASA D-Pd experiment (Fralick, et al.; 1989) looked for neutrons (saw none) – but saw anomalous heating"
,,,and mentions some other places where the research has taken place:
"After 1989, Cold Fusion research evolved into research in “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” (LENR), primarily at U.S. Navy, DARPA & various Universities"
...mentions current NASA research:
"2009: NASA IPP-sponsored effort to: –Repeat the initial tests to investigate this anomalous heat"
...and shows a graph of the anomalous heat:
"the calculated thermal power in/out is given with the net anomalous heating ".
...It states that one hypothesis to explain the anomalous heat is:
"Ultra Low Momentum Neutrons (Widom & Larsen)"
...And shows a photo, schematics and technical data of experimental engines based on the effect:
"Stirling Laboratory Research Engine at Cleveland State University - LENR Energy to Rotational Power Research Facility "
NASA has been researching Fleischmann and Pons' anomalous heat since 1989. Silent Key (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds more like:
  • NASA participated in the 1989 cold fusion initial craze, involving many NASA scientists and centers. The theory was based only on F&P vague explanations. Around 1989-1990 all research was stopped.
  • NASA's Lewis Research Center tested two cells provided by BlackLight Power (then know as Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation). The theory is based on "hydrinos". They found that the energy output was much smaller than claimed by the company, and it could be caused by recombination. The test had many limitations of time and resources and it doesn't appear to have any follow-up studies.
  • NASA started a "LENR" program in 2009 that is still active. It seems to be carried by Zawodny and based on Widom-Larsen's theory. He says that "While I personally find sufficient demonstration that LENR effects warrant further investigation, I remain skeptical." (from the Forbes article, which is quoting from his blog) He's researching to see if cold fusion really works or not, and his budget is approved by NASA headquarters (as opposed to other research efforts, where scientists were paying material out of their own pockets because they couldn't get funding).
So, please find a reliable source for "NASA has been researching Fleischmann and Pons' anomalous heat since 1989" (and a listing of how and when this research happened), because at first sight it appears to be inaccurate. It looks more like 3 separate efforts separated by years of no research. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It sounds more like..." + "It looks more like..."
- Your claims, your burden of proof. Silent Key (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you were the one claiming that "NASA has been researching Fleischmann and Pons' anomalous heat since 1989". If you want that claim inserted in the article, you will have to find a reliable source for it. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/TM-107167.pdf is from 1996 at NASA Lewis Research Center. 67.41.203.4 (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900008108_1990008108.pdf is the TM-102430 from 1989. --134.191.221.72 (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've put these good URLs in a new NASA section and NASA External links. They also help correct the misrepresentation of F&P I tried to point out in the previous (sabotaged) thread. Silent Key (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The URLs are good (except for the last sentence in the text before I edited it this morning), but I question the conclusions drawn from them in the text. I agree with Enric as to to the status of research, and I question whether "heat of adsorption" has been eliminated by any of the test protocols. (That's my original research, but "heat of adsorption" had been given, by reliable sources, as an explanation of the anomalous heat in the F&P research.) We can say that (some) NASA projects have been researching cold fusion, but we need to be careful about the conclusions... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And sources say by 1990 research had stopped in all major US labs except a few places which are named by name. This information should be at least in Huizenga 1993. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the 1989 paper is irrelevant, since it's part of the craze of research back in 1989. I don't recall any source saying that this particular technical memorandum was any more relevant than any of all the hundreds of papers published in peer-reviewed journals during that time. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The added sentence that it was replicated with "light water" indicates that, whatever the anomalous heat is, it isn't cold fusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are several dozen light water reports, many of which are summarized in [5] which suggests that metal transmutation reactions are involved. 71.215.95.197 (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No answer to 71.215.95.197's evidence of transmutations? Then why delete my work because I referenced light water? Silent Key (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Evidence"? And isn't Pt past the break-even point; Pt + H → Au requires energy. If someone is going to propose metal transmutation, at least propose one that is exothermic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Err, I still think that Zawodny's research should be under Cold_fusion#Subsequent_research. Or maybe under Cold_fusion#Further_reviews_and_funding_issues because it's a funding thing and it still has to publish research. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ Arthur Rubin:
Widom-Larsen Theory
(ultra-low momentum neutron catalysis & beta decay):
1. E + e- → ẽ-
2a. ẽ- + p+ → nULM + νe
2b. ẽ- + D+ → 2nULM + νe
3. nULM + (Z, A) → (Z, A + 1)
4. (Z, A + 1) → (Z + 1, A + 1) + e- + νe
Silent Key (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Silent Key, that is not a light water reaction. Enric Naval, Zawodny has published a patent application which is presently being examined. Arthur Rubin, the most frequent unexpected element reported from palladium in light water is iron, but the results with the most unexpected isotopes involve nickel, e.g. [6]. My opinion is that LENR is not usually "fusion" per se, but sometimes might as well be in terms of reaction products, and that Widom-Larsen theory doesn't begin to explain the variety of transmutation results reported in what I think would be considered reliable sources if they weren't on a controversial topic. What kind of sources do you guys need to make LENR a separate article? There are several literature review sections in peer reviewed mainstream physics articles which go over the light water transmutations. Is that enough to break LENR out into a separate article? Observer Sem (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(A patent application doesn't qualify as "published research"...)

A few researchers have claimed observations of excess heat in light water cells. However, the claim is considered unlikely even by cold fusion proponents.... A 2001 book described it as "A new mania took hold among some of the wilder-eyed enthusiasts: the light-water cells had been reported in some hands to generate more heat, therefore more fusion, than the heavy-water cells, for which they were designed to provide a zero-fusion baseline."[7] Other sources don't mention these experiments. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which proponents? [8] shows dozens of light water results, with maybe a third in mainstream academic physics journals. I've never seen any criticism of these specific results which didn't claim the entire field was bunk. Again, for these results which clearly aren't even "fusion" even in appearance, LENR should be a distinct article. Observer Sem (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zawodny's work has been discussed here before (he's not certain even himself that the phenomen exists). What is being discussed here that is actually new? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to this quote? "it is my professional opinion that the production of excess energy has been demonstrated.... I did not say, reliable, useful, commercially viable, or controllable."[9] I did not know that Zawodny has ever stated that he doubts the phenomenon exists, so if I am mistaken then please let me know what specific source you're referring to.
What is new (although I can't believe this hasn't come up before) is that I am suggesting that the LENR/low energy nuclear reaction article be de-coupled from Cold fusion so that effects which are obviously not fusion even in appearance can be accommodated. Observer Sem (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any reliable sources for the "excess energy" claims? Are there any that support "LENR" as being anything other than a renaming of cold fusion by proponents? Zawodny and the ICCF are not WP:RS on these topics. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ ArtifexMayhem: There were plenty of reliable sources until you moronically deleted them, calling them "WP:OR and general BS" (11.55, 1 March 2013).
@ Observer Sem, one possible source of the proton in my step 2a. above is light water (for heavy water, the deuteron in 2b. applies), but I tend to agree with you about the need to fork the article. However, that leaves the problem of the existence of the falsehoods in this rotten article, and the fact that activist editors will simply move to the new article and suppress it. Silent Key (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Get a high quality source, otherwise there is nothing to discuss. Multiple sources mention LENR as being a renaming of Cold Fusion. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A renaming of cold fusion BECAUSE IT WORKS. And what source on Earth is higher than the NASA sources I put in? (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/research.htm NASA GRC Physical Sensors Instrumentation Research):

"Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center and elsewhere consistently show evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and unloading of deuterium into and out of bulk palladium. At one time called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability. The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC was applied to improve the diagnostics for investigating the anomalous heat in LENR."

Silent Key (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no shortage of WP:RS on excess energy, even if you don't like J Fusion Technol, as well as on transmutations and light water reactions: the Biberian (2007) literature review in Int J Nuc Energy Sci Tech or Storms (2010) in Naturwissenschaften, for example. What is missing is anything which purports to explain the iron in palladium electrode experiments, or any explanation of transmutation to lower atomic numbers in general. Widom-Larsen theory is utterly unable to explain transmutations to lower atomic numbers. Observer Sem (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being "Editor in Chief" of the fringe Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science makes Biberian useless as a source. Same goes for ISCMNS executive board member and cold fusion researcher Storms and the web page maintained by a cold fusion proponent (even if it is hosted on a NASA server).
Silent Key: 1) There is absolutely no scientific evidence that "it works". 2) Calling other editors morons is not productive (I'm pretty sure you wouldn't enjoy being called a fuck-wit). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, at least when I was at JPL (1976&ndsah;1982), fringe research was done, with the knowledge that it was fringe, and sometimes with the knowledge that the chief experimenter was a true believer. I assume that would still be the case, today. I would say that even if there were official NASA publications, they might not meet our criteria for reliabiity. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do the reliability standards for journal review articles involve anything about whether the authors are affiliated with sources which aren't considered as reliable as the articles' source? Observer Sem (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence is simply a lie

It should be: Cold fusion is a hypothetical type of nuclear reaction that would occur at, or near, room temperature, compared with temperatures in the millions of degrees that is required for hypothetical "hot" fusion.

Because we have for both the same evidence. We measure neutron radiation on both and on both we have evidence for converting an element to another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.152.200.121 (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Hot fusion has a theory behind it. Cold fusion does not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, there are many theories. The reason why your article compares hot fusion with cold fusion is that it was a very popular media talking point, the news media kept repeating that for 20 years.84.106.26.81 (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are many theories for cold fusion. But:
a) supporters can't agree on which theory is the "correct" one
b) all theories contradict one or more fundamental points of conventional theories
c) the theories have no experimental proof: it can't be replicated by others, or it can't be replicated reliably, or the original proponent can't replicate the effect a second time, or the results are small enough that they can be caused by experimental error
d) no successful predictions have been made
In the other hand, hot fusion supporters agree in the theories behind the phenomena, the theories are compatible with conventional theories, they keep being verified, and they keep making successful predictions.
And the Sun is a huge hot fusion reactor, which is a pretty good demonstration that hot fusion exists. And hot fusion in labs has been verified to the satisfaction of the scientific community. It's just that they can't sustain it for a long time. The hypothetical part is the "man-made self-sustainable hot fusion reactor and source of energy". And they already know that it would work if we could build it. The problem is: can we make a container hard enough to keep the reaction in check? There is no comparison with cold fusion. --[[User:|Enric Naval]] (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No. Hot fusion has a theory behind it. Cold fusion does not." — Arthur Rubin
  • "Yes, there are many theories for cold fusion." - Enric Naval — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.26.81 (talk • contribs)
84.* I'm not sure if you noticed, but I'll highlight something. Arthur Rubin refers to "a theory" singular. Cold fusion, as Enric points out, has many hypotheses (as they "have no experimental proof"), but no actual scientific theory (which would require evidence). If you want to argue the semantics of using the common parlance of the word theories instead of using the word hypotheses, be my guest, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

context of researchers

Perhaps it would help if we would describe the topic in the context of the individual researchers. That way we can eliminate any bias we might have about the topic in general.

Extended content

LENR researchers in Italy

  • Sergio Focardi[1][2], published at least 3 peer reviewed papers in Il Nuovo Cimento, collaborated with Andrea Rossi on the Energy Catalyzer
  • Francesco Piantelli[1], published together with Sergio Focardi
  • Francesco Scaramuzzi, ENEA, Frascati, Italy [3][2]
  • Antonella De Ninno, ENEA, Frascati, Italy [3][4][5][2]

LENR researchers from India

Japanese LENR researchers

  • Yoshiaki Arata[7][16][17], Osaka University, has published numerous peer reviewed papers on his gas loading experiments together with co-author Yue Chang Zhang.[18]
  • Yue Chang Zhang,[16] has published numerous peer reviewed papers together with Yoshiaki Arata

LENR researchers from China

LENR researchers in the United States

US Navy & affiliated LENR researchers

  • David J. Nagel, Naval research lab Washington DC and Research Professor of Engineering and Applied Science, George Washington University, Washington DC. [21][60][61][62]
  • Melvin H. Miles[32], Chemistry Division, Research Department Naval Weapons Center, China Lake and Department of Chemistry, University of La Verne, California [63][24][1]
  • Graham K. Hubler[68][69]Naval Research Laboratory, was one of the proposers of the 2004 DOE Cold Fusion review together with Randall J. Hekman (Hekman Industries, LLC, Grand Rapids, Mich.), Michael C. H. McKubre (SRI International, Menlo Park, Calif.), Peter L. Hagelstein (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.), David J. Nagel (The George Washington University, Washington, D.C.) and Graham Hubler, (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.)

Russia

  • Andrei Lipson [11]
  • Nataliya Famina,
  • Irina Savvatimova,
  • Yury Bazhutov,
  • Alexander Karabut
  • Yan Kucherov [12]

Notable entrepreneurs and inventors

other LENR researchers

Other

  • Jacques Dufour, CNAM Laboratoire des Sciences Nucléaires, Paris, France [83], currently working on "Experimental Verification of the Pico-Chemistry Hypothesis".
  • J. Kasagi, Laboratory of Nuclear Science, Tohoku University, Japan has presented several papers on the ICCF. Together with Y. Iwamura he authored the "Country History of Japanese Work on Cold Fusion" paper presented on the ICCF-14.
  • Eiichi. Yamaguchi and T. Nishioka, "Cold nuclear fusion induced by controlled out-diffusion of deuterons in palladium", Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Part 2 (April 1990) Vol.29, No.4, p. L666-669.
  • Quinton Bowles, professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Missouri in Kansas City
  • W.-S. Zhang, Low Energy Nuclear Laboratory, Portland State University, Portland, U.S.A.[89]
  • J. Dash, Low Energy Nuclear Laboratory, Portland State University, Portland, U.S.A. [90]
  • Michael E. Melich
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Krivit, Steven B. (10 April 2008), "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Research – Global Scenario" (PDF), Current Science, 94 (7): 854–857, retrieved 2011-11-15
  2. ^ a b c d e f COLD FUSION - The history of research in Italy (2009)
  3. ^ a b c What ever happened to cold fusion? - David Goodstein
  4. ^ a b c d Cold fusion experimentally confirmed - R Colin Johnson
  5. ^ a b c d 'Cold fusion' rebirth? New evidence for existence of controversial energy source - American Chemical Society
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i What if cold fusion is real? - Charles Platt
  7. ^ a b c d e f Where is the E-Cat? - Focus.it
  8. ^ http://www.opengrey.eu/item/display/10068/325727
  9. ^ Fulvio Frisone web site
  10. ^ http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FrisoneFthecoulomb.pdf
  11. ^ a b c d Jayaraman, K.S. (January 17, 2008), "Cold fusion hot again", Nature India, doi:10.1038/nindia.2008.77, retrieved 2008-12-07
  12. ^ a b Interview with Srinivasan
  13. ^ http://www.southasiamail.com/news.php?id=102534
  14. ^ PK Iyengar dies
  15. ^ [1]
  16. ^ a b c Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion - Lisa Zyga
  17. ^ http://physicsworld.com/blog/2008/06/coldfusion_demonstration_an_up_1.html
  18. ^ Arata-Zhang papers
  19. ^ Cold Fusion Research Laboratory web pages
  20. ^ Kozima papers
  21. ^ a b c d e f g In from the cold - David Adam
  22. ^ http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTnucleartra.pdf
  23. ^ a b Storms, Edmund (2010), "Status of cold fusion (2010)", Naturwissenschaften (online), 97 (10): 861–881, Bibcode:2010NW.....97..861S, doi:10.1007/s00114-010-0711-x, PMID 20838756 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
  24. ^ a b c d e f g h i Journal of Environmental Monitoring
  25. ^ a b Kitamura, Akira; Nohmi, Takayoshi; Sasaki, Yu; Taniike, Akira; Takahashi, Akito; Reiko, Seto; Yushi, Fujita (2009). "Anomalous effects in charging of Pd powders with high density hydrogen isotopes". Physics Letters A. 373 (35): 3109–3112. doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2009.06.061.
  26. ^ Takahashi papers
  27. ^ a b Fleischmann, Martin; Pons, Stanley; Anderson, Mark W.; Li, Lian Jun; Hawkins, Marvin (1990). "Calorimetry of the palladium-deuterium-heavy water system". Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry. 287 (2): 293–348. doi:10.1016/0022-0728(90)80009-U.
  28. ^ a b c The ghost of free energy - Jon Cartwright
  29. ^ a b c Whatever happened to cold fusion? - David Voss
  30. ^ a b c Neutron tracks revive hopes for cold fusion - Colin Barras
  31. ^ a b c d e Warming Up to Cold Fusion - Sharon Weinberger
  32. ^ a b c d e Cold fusion is back at the American Chemical Society - Katharine Sanderson
  33. ^ Srinivasan, Mahadeva (10 April 2008), "Energy concepts for the 21st century" (PDF), Current Science, 94 (7): 842–843, retrieved 2011-11-15
  34. ^ a b c d e f Cold fusion back on the menu - Richard Van Noorden
  35. ^ What Happened to Cold Fusion? Michael McKubre SRI Cafe Scientifique
  36. ^ Packham, N.J.C., et al., Production of tritium from D2O electrolysis at a palladium cathode. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1989. 270: p. 451., cited by Storms, "Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations", page 82, 2007, Singapore: World Scientific, ISBN 9-8127062-0-8.
  37. ^ Taubes, Gary (1990), "Cold fusion conundrum at Texas A&M", Science, 248 (15 June 1990): 1299, Bibcode:1990Sci...248.1299T, doi:10.1126/science.248.4961.1299, PMID 17735269
  38. ^ New York Times (1990-11-20), "Texas Panel Finds No Fraud In Cold Fusion Experiments", New York Times (November 20, 1990), retrieved 2009-09-24 {{citation}}: More than one of |work= and |journal= specified (help)
  39. ^ Bockris, J., Accountability and academic freedom: The battle concerning research on cold fusion at Texas A&M University. Accountability Res., 2000. 8: p. 103.
  40. ^ http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEmitspecial.pdf
  41. ^ http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchwingerJnuclearene.pdf
  42. ^ In memoriam Julian Schwinger
  43. ^ a b c Cold-Fusion Graybeards Keep the Research Coming - Mark Anderson
  44. ^ 2009 - University of Missouri LENR Seminar - Dr. Peter Hagelstein
  45. ^ http://www.rle.mit.edu/rleonline/People/PeterL.Hagelstein.html
  46. ^ http://pw1.netcom.com/~storms2/
  47. ^ http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHsomeperson.pdf
  48. ^ http://www.worldgreenenergysymposium.us/newsroom.html
  49. ^ http://world.std.com/~mica/jetrefs.html
  50. ^ Richard Oriani
  51. ^ John Dash - Portland State University
  52. ^ http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim.shtml
  53. ^ Montclair University
  54. ^ Kowalski pages at Montclair University
  55. ^ Letter from Kowalski and from Miles in Physics Today, vol. 63, issue 6, p. 10
  56. ^ http://www.springerlink.com/content/022501181p3h764l/
  57. ^ http://www.springerlink.com/content/022501181p3h764l/
  58. ^ http://www.springerlink.com/content/022501181p3h764l/
  59. ^ http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2009/UnivLouvain-ForsleyColloquium.pdf
  60. ^ David J. Nagel bio
  61. ^ http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA338629
  62. ^ Nucat - David J. Nagel
  63. ^ http://coldfusion-miles.com/publications.html
  64. ^ In memoriam Scott Chubb
  65. ^ Cold Fusion Energy Science - Talbot Chubb
  66. ^ Talbot Chubb dies
  67. ^ Michael E. Melich bio
  68. ^ Hubler Low energy nuclear physics
  69. ^ Hubler 2007 paper
  70. ^ a b c http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/26/us/2-teams-put-new-life-in-cold-fusion-theory.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm
  71. ^ http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,407154,00.html
  72. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54964-2004Nov16_5.html
  73. ^ Energetics Technologies - University of Missouri Business Incubator
  74. ^ http://www.brillouinenergy.com/
  75. ^ http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/20110817/breed-energy-catalyzers-ready-commercialization.htm
  76. ^ http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion.html?pg=5&topic=&topic_set=
  77. ^ http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue25/deviceupdate.html
  78. ^ Jean-Paul Bibérian website
  79. ^ Bibérian papers
  80. ^ http://www.marwan-chemie.com
  81. ^ http://www.marwan-chemie.de/
  82. ^ http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/ACSMarch2010program.pdf
  83. ^ http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.0955.pdf
  84. ^ Allan Widom website
  85. ^ Widom papers
  86. ^ Clean nuclear power possible through cold fusion - November 14, 2011 - Belle Monappa Hegde
  87. ^ Srivastava - Northeastern University
  88. ^ CERN colloquium on LENR
  89. ^ http://web.pdx.edu/~pdx00210/Papers/papera/papera32.pdf
  90. ^ http://web.pdx.edu/~pdx00210/Papers/papera/papera32.pdf
  91. ^ http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Reifenschwcoldfusion.pdf
  92. ^ http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2504851
  93. ^ http://reload1.noorderlicht.vpro.nl/dossiers/4032610/hoofdstuk/8953882/
  94. ^ a b http://newenergytimes.com/v2/inthenews/1991/NYT-TwoTeamsPutNewLifeInTheory.shtml
  95. ^ a b c http://www.springerlink.com/content/r92537165r611225/
  96. ^ Randell L. Mills, Steven P. Kneizys, “Excess Heat Production by the Electrolysis of an Aqueous Potassium Carbonate Electrolyte and the Implications for Cold Fusion,” Fusion Technology, Vol.20, August 1991, pp.65-81.
  97. ^ http://riken.nd.rl.ac.uk/~rikenral/ral/port1/port1-papers.html
  98. ^ http://www.new.ans.org/pubs/journals/fst/a_144
  99. ^ http://www.opengrey.eu/item/display/10068/325727
  100. ^ http://www.opengrey.eu/item/display/10068/325727
  101. ^ http://www.opengrey.eu/item/display/10068/325727
  102. ^ http://www.opengrey.eu/item/display/10068/325727
  103. ^ http://www.opengrey.eu/item/display/10068/325727
  104. ^ http://www.opengrey.eu/item/display/10068/325727
  105. ^ http://www.opengrey.eu/item/display/10068/325727
  106. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/17/science/cold-fusion-derided-in-us-is-hot-in-japan.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
It's better to use reliable independent sources that are external from the field..... By trying to summarize so many primary sources you risk falling into the trap of making new research from primary sources instead of summarizing secondary sources that have already performed that research. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Nothing found in Japan until 2008

I'm sure you'll be pleased to learn that the article already includes that last cite. It also includes the 1997 followup article in the NYT, wherein Hideo Ikegami reports the end of that project:

"We couldn't achieve what was first claimed in terms of cold fusion," said Dr. Hideo Ikegami, a retired professor at the National Institute for Fusion Science in Nagoya. "We can't find any reason to propose more money for the coming year or for the future."

Strangely, though you listed his initial, optimistic statement to the NYT in 1992, you seem to have omitted this followup in your list. Also, if I might make a suggestion, it would be helpful if you labeled your tables more clearly, so that it's clear that your list includes scientists who have clearly indicated that they could not replicate the claims, and who feel that there is no reason to fund any more research in cold fusion. As it is, there's a danger that some readers might make the error of thinking that the names on your list were of people who actually supported the claims of cold fusion. --Noren (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a swing. The list has minimal sources or it doesn't fit on this page. Just enough to suggest Ikegami was indeed involved.
Section: "Subsequent research", the part: "2006–2007", doesn't sit in the correct spot on the timeline of the section. The rest of the section is sorted by year. If you would be so kind to put it a bit lower in the section then the Japanese context is also restored. Because the text continues....
In 1999 the Japan C-F Research Society was established to promote the independent research into cold fusion that continued in Japan.[83] The society holds annual meetings; the 12th meeting took place on December 17–18, 2011 at Kobe University.[84]
Still nothing convincing....
In May 2008 Japanese researcher Yoshiaki Arata (Osaka University) demonstrated an experiment that produced heat when deuterium gas was introduced into a cell containing a mixture of palladium and zirconium oxide.[text 5] In an August 2009 peer-reviewed paper Akira Kitamura (Kobe University) et al. reported replication of this experiment.[85] Replication of earlier work by Arata had been claimed by McKubre at SRI.[86]
You see? Before 2008 nothing convincing was produced. But after 2008 we've been stuck with things like:
  • Arata was involved in a "hypothetical type of nuclear reaction"
  • Arata's work "has been rejected by the mainstream scientific community"
These falsehoods are without sources. You can use almost any kind of source for things before 2008, but after 2008 any refutations has to be peer reviewed. You may still quote other note worthy sources but you have to attribute them to their source and you may not derive new and original results that contradict Arata. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

suggested modification

The article is locked,

Section "Subsequent research" with improved chronology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&diff=545608432&oldid=545608374

The research efforts now appear in the same order in which they appeared. I havent edited any of the paragraphs.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

split "Pons and Fleischmann" from main article

What I see is a huge article about P&F with a little cold fusion section in the middle. We've pushed wikipedians to the limit and beyond trying to fit their contributions into this weird scope. Editors are made to go though a lot of effort to get a single sentence mention of something other than Pons and Fleischman. Many got banned in this process.

IMHO the project should not aim to endlessly rewrite history, we can have a stable static article about Pons and Fleischmann's press release. When that article is finished there is no more battle ground. At the same time it would be a terrific idea to write a cold fusion/lenr article citing the peer reviewed literature.

The accomplishment will be that new editors may show up and actually understand what they are suppose to do. This is very different from the current climate where no one seems to get the scope and many get banned. To give an idea how complex it is: Here is an example where naval is writing about P&F while ArtifexMayhem is wrting about cold fusion:[16] I initially thought naval was right.... go figure.

I'm not confused why the puzzle is so hard. I think it perfectly reasonable to have the article about cold fusion require peer reviewed sources and to have the static history article about P&F.

So I read: Wikipedia:Summary_style#Avoiding_unnecessary_splits

  • Does the new article meet the general notability criterion? - Yes it does.
  • editors are encouraged to work on further developing the main article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article. - Yes it does.
  • Do not put undue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts. In shorter articles, if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page. - Yes it does.
  • If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. - Yes it qualifies
  • The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of details, thus giving readers the ability to zoom to the level of details they need and not exhausting those who need a primer on a whole topic. Breakout methods should anticipate the various details levels that typical readers will look for. - The typical reader is looking for a description of the field of research, the spectrum of experiments, how these experiments work, an overview of research efforts and a tiny bit of history.

I'm sure the archives of this article contain much more P&F content.

I also see: Wikipedia:Splitting, which may provide further suggestions.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

vote

  • Hello, I think it most specifically described here: Article spinouts:""Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork."
  • The split is not an attempt to focus on new material. It is an attempt to create a sub article our of excessive coverage in the main article.
Does my proposal make more sense now? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree, this is another POV attempt to whitewash "LENR". It's the usual claim that "LENR" is not a continuation of F&P's experiments. The article has several sources who say LENR is just a new name for the old thing, and that the current field is a continuation of the old one. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem confused Enric, I'm proposing to split Pons and Fleischmann from the cold fusion article.
To answer your question anyway: Cold Fusion (the anomalous heat effect) is part of the Low Energy Nuclear ReactionS and a subject of the research field Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. Only when we have to much coverage would there be a need to split it from the main article. We barely have a sentence so you can safely forget about this.
My point is that we have excessive coverage of just 2 researchers in the main article. 2 out of many. After the split we would simply have 2 articles about the topic. Pretty much the same sources and citations currently found in the cold fusion article will also be found in the P&F article. Contradictions shouldn't exist.
Article spinouts:"Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure."
"Completely normal" seems obvious enough? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first step in your whitewash is to remove mention of P&F (which is also the content with most WP:WEIGHT). Then comes the re-branding exercise. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline says no such things. It instructs considerable coverage in the main article. With a link to the sub article.
Article spinouts: "Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary, conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter. This can happen when a particular controversial incident gets a lot of attention from editors representing different points of view, expanding until every item of evidence is included and referenced. This kind of detailed examination of a single incident in a general article will usually be considered to give Undue Weight to the incident so it is more appropriate to break that section out as a separate section and just have a summary in the main article. However, it is possible for article spinouts to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ. Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies."
84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't bold again the first word in my comment. I purposefully left it unbolded because of Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, article content is decided by strength of argument, not by counting votes in polls.
You are avoiding the most important argument: the reliable sources say that it's still the same field. And wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If you don't address that argument, then you are posting your own personal opinions (And here is my own personal opinion: sources say that CF, LENR and CNMS are the same because the last two haven't achieved their own breakthroughs. For example, a replicable experiment that requires a new theory. I think that sources will keep saying the same until this happens. But this is only my personal opinion) --Enric Naval (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree In response to (* Does the new article meet the general notability criterion? - Yes it does.), keep in mind that it has not been shown that Pons and Fleishmann have any notability other than their work with cold fusion. In response to (What I see is a huge article about P&F with a little cold fusion section in the middle.), keep in mind that the article has many sections that have zero or almost zero mention of Pons and Fleishmann. It covers both their episode and other issues. Olorinish (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say the article has many sections that have zero or almost zero mention of Pons and Fleischmann. This is an understandable mistake. Combined with the Wikipedia:Notability issues you raise I can be 100% sure you haven't looked at the sources close enough. No offense intended. You are in no way obligated to look. If you do you will see that most of the article is sourced on old things that only talk about P&F. On the Pons and Fleischmann article these old references would look very neat. But where the article tries to apply 1989 journalism to 2008 reviewed science, then you are making a terrible mess of the wikipedia.
Let me pick a random source:[17] "Frank Close, a leading physicist and talented popular science writer, reveals the true story of the cold fusion controversy". Thats not bad at all for 1991. Finally the truth? If we now look at reference numbers: 19, 41, 44, 61, 68, 100, 130, 133, 141, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 156 and 157 Then we see this book mentioned, again and again. If a book is published in 1991 it can only talk about P&F. Lets try one more?:[18] Published in 1989, it can only talk about P&F. Or do you see other possibilities? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are several recent sources right here in our article. A 2006 Discover magazine article[19] The 2009 sources when Mossier-Boss announced his new results (several sources). The 2009 paper that compared CF publications against the publications in other fields[20] A 2010 paper by Hagelstein talking about"recent Fleischmann–Pons experiments carried out by different groups"[21].
And you can find many recent sources in User:Enric_Naval/pathological_science#sources_added_later. They all speak of cold fusion as a single continuous field spanning from 1989 to the present. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is Current Science a peer reviewed journal? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. I doubt the quality of its peer review. It's a small journal that has printed pseudoscientific nonsense. If you are in Europe or America, and can only get your stuff printed in a random small indian journal with a reputation for lax peer review, it's a good sign that it's rubbish. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making it obvious enough?

This part is the cold fusion article: 

    1 History
        1.3 Subsequent research 
        1.4 Publications
        1.5 Conferences
        1.6 Further reviews and funding issues
    2 Reported results
    4 Patents
    5 Cultural references
    8 References
    9 Bibliography
    10 External links

And this part is the Pons and Fleischmann coverage: 

    1 History
        1.1 Before the Fleischmann–Pons experiment         about pons and fleischmann
        1.2 Fleischmann–Pons experiment                   also about pons and fleischmann
            1.2.1 Events preceding announcement           also about pons and fleischmann
            1.2.2 Announcement                            also about pons and fleischmann
            1.2.3 Response and fallout                    also about pons and fleischmann
    2 Reported results                                    also about pons and fleischmann
        2.1 Excess heat and energy production       (In experiments such as those run by Fleischmann and Pons...)
        2.2 Helium, heavy elements, and neutrons    (....Fleischmann and Pons reported....)
        2.3 Proposed mechanisms                     (Many years after the 1989 experiment...)
    3 Criticism                                           also about pons and fleischmann
        3.1 Incompatibilities with conventional fusion     also about pons and fleischmann
            3.1.1 Repulsion forces                        also about pons and fleischmann
            3.1.2 Lack of expected reaction products       also about pons and fleischmann
        3.2 Setup of experiments                          also about pons and fleischmann
            3.2.1 Reproducibility                         also about pons and fleischmann
                3.2.1.1 Loading ratio                      also about pons and fleischmann
            3.2.2 Misinterpretation of data                also about pons and fleischmann
            3.2.3 Calorimetry errors                       also about pons and fleischmann
            3.2.4 Initial lack of control experiments      also about pons and fleischmann
    6 See also                                            also about pons and fleischmann
    7 Notes                                               only about pons and fleischmann

Compare that with this coverage:


In May 2008 Japanese researcher Yoshiaki Arata (Osaka University) demonstrated an experiment that produced heat when deuterium gas was introduced into a cell containing a mixture of palladium and zirconium oxide.[text 5] In an August 2009 peer-reviewed paper Akira Kitamura (Kobe University) et al. reported replication of this experiment.[85] Replication of earlier work by Arata had been claimed by McKubre at SRI.[86]


Thats the whole thing. This is our peer reviewed cold fusion coverage. Unworthy of a section in the P&F dominated article.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first list:
  • "subsequent" and "further" sections don't include the original events by definition
  • "Publications" tells the whole story from the response to F&P to the current state. The most recent reliable sources (Simon 2002, Labinger & Weininger 2005, Adderman 2006, Bettencourt 2009) treated the volume of publication as a continuum inside the single field of cold fusion
  • "Reported results" includes the first replications of F&P's original experiment
  • "Patents" starts with the original patents made by F&P and the Utah university
  • "Cultural references" doesn't distinguish references influenced directly by F&P's experiment from later influences
  • "Conferences" starts with the 1990 conference that was made to promote F&P's experiment, and explains how the situation evolved since then
Regarding the second list:
  • "Incompatibilities with conventional fusion" and "Setup of experiments" and its subsections. They span both the original experiment and later experiments and theories.
  • "Reported results", see above, it spans all reported results since the first replications of F&P's original experiment.
--Enric Naval (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use cite_journal to reformat in 7 seconds not 15-27

There is a long-term plan to upgrade to a faster Lua version of Template:Citation, which has been used to format the footnotes in "Cold fusion". However, due to further delays of another week or more, I propose to change the citations to the current 6x-faster Template:Cite_journal (with option "ref=harv") to connect the author/year links. I have run some partial tests which confirm that clicking on the author/name footnotes will still link to the related book/journal citations. The expected edit-preview time will drop to about 7 seconds, rather than the current 15-27 seconds of the old version of {citation}. By default, the footnote parameters will be separated by dots, but option "separator=," can be used to retain the comma format. If there are no objections, I will streamline the article later tonight using {cite_journal}, to allow edit-preview with the 7-second reformat. Also, new citations can be added with either {citation} or {cite_journal} mixed, or any related templates. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&oldid=547422341"