| Revision as of 14:26, 13 March 2023 editBon courage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users66,214 edits →Cultural references: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 10:31, 21 December 2024 edit undoHob Gadling (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,501 edits →Rename article to LENR (Low-energy Nuclear Reactions) |
| (39 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Vital article|topic=Science|subpage=Physics|level=5|class=B}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
| Line 59: |
Line 58: |
|
|otd3date=2017-03-23|otd3oldid=771633321 |
|
|otd3date=2017-03-23|otd3oldid=771633321 |
|
|otd4date=2019-03-23|otd4oldid=888975125 |
|
|otd4date=2019-03-23|otd4oldid=888975125 |
|
|
|otd5date=2024-03-23|otd5oldid=1214943052 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Physics |class=B |importance=High }} |
|
{{WikiProject Physics |importance=High }} |
|
{{WikiProject Energy|class=b|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Energy|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=High}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
| Line 74: |
Line 74: |
|
|section= Home:Life&Style:Gadgets&Tech:Features |
|
|section= Home:Life&Style:Gadgets&Tech:Features |
|
|collapsed=yes}} |
|
|collapsed=yes}} |
|
{{ds/talk notice|topic=ps|style=long}} |
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ps|style=long}} |
|
{{merged-from |List of references to cold fusion in popular culture}} |
|
{{merged-from |List of references to cold fusion in popular culture}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
| Line 90: |
Line 90: |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{archives |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=180 |units=days |index= /Archive index |auto=short }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Essay by Huw Price == |
|
== Interesting read and neutrality == |
|
{{Archive top|result= ] essay, not useful. ] (]) 16:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Science philosopher ] has an on the politics and sociology of cold fusion, in which he claims research is hindered by a ''reputation trap'' that can also have negative results in other fields: "People outside the trap won't go near it, for fear of falling in.... People inside the trap are already regarded as disreputable, an attitude that trumps any efforts that they might make to argue their way out, by reason and evidence."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Price |first1=Huw |author1-link=Huw Price |title=The cold fusion horizon |url=https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-scientists-dismiss-the-possibility-of-cold-fusion |website=] |language=en |date=21 December 2015}}</ref> His views may be an important perspective worth including, to contextualize and clarify broader issues (please read the whole article, I'm not necessarily advocating the particular quote be included). See additional journalistic context on Price's view and the state of cold fusion studies by science writer Clive Cookson.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Cookson |first1=Clive |title=Thirty years later, the cold fusion dream is still alive |url=https://www.ft.com/content/4233196a-82cb-11e9-b592-5fe435b57a3b |work=] |date=4 June 2019}}</ref> ] (]) 01:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:That's the old excuse pseudoscientists always used: "we do not have any evidence because scientists will not look for it to avoid damaging their reputations". Not very relevant here becuase it is universally applicable wherever there is no evidence for something. --] (]) 07:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Do you think Huw Price is a pseudoscientist, or otherwise unqualified to comment on this topic? ] (]) 16:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Sounds like a paraphrase of David Goodstein<ref>{{cite journal |
|
|
|mode = cs2 |
|
|
|last = Goodstein |
|
|
|first = David |
|
|
|title = Whatever happened to cold fusion? |
|
|
|journal = American Scholar |
|
|
|volume = 63 |
|
|
|issue = 4 |
|
|
|year = 1994 |
|
|
|pages = 527–541 |
|
|
|url = http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html |
|
|
|access-date = 25 May 2008 |
|
|
|issn = 0003-0937 |
|
|
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080516200325/http://www.its.caltech.edu/%7Edg/fusion_art.html |
|
|
|archive-date = 16 May 2008 |
|
|
|url-status = dead |
|
|
}}</ref>, who we already cover in the article. See the quote referring to a 'pariah field'. There's no need to rehash this concept every time someone new repeats it.--] (]) 20:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Not a scientist and unqualified. Philosophers of science ususally don't have meaningful contributions to specific scientific questions because their technical understanding is too shallow - they literally can't look beyond who has what position, into the actual reasoning that goes into it, because it is all gibberish to them. Instead, they look for reasons they can understand, i.e. sociological ones. Many of them can't even name any properties of science that would distinguish it from bullshit, or even care about the difference. Price seems to be one of those. --] (]) 05:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Credible justification for this, please! Anyway, I'll put the question to him and see what he comes up with. But let's have your credible justification first. And while we're about it, what are your own qualifications? ] (]) 09:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I suggest you take a look at https://uberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Huw-Price-Times-Arrow1997.pdf, and see if you still want to claim that Price doesn't understand physics. ] (]) 09:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I am not claiming that {{tq|Price doesn't understand physics}}, I am saying that he has no formal qualification. But that is not relevant for my reasoning, it was just a response to a question luring me onto a tangent. His essay appeared in ], which is not an RS for scientific questions. If he had anything interesting to say, one could overlook that in a pinch. But, as I said, it's just the usual I-am-being-suppressed cliché and not worth including. Otherwise, every article about something that does not work could quote people saying, esentially, "no wonder that we have not yet found out that it does work, because scientists avoid researching it!" --] (]) 13:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Such a biased perspective! I warn people to take care regarding Misplaced Pages articles because of the way they get taken over by ''genuinely'' unqualified people (which Price is not). --] (]) 13:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While I personally don't believe cold fusion would work, I like that this article tries to be neutral on the subject instead of just being predatory like most other controversial articles. Its still not perfect but reading this article made me very angry at the mainstream scientific establishment for their behavior. I'm happy the article didn't accuse the field of being pseudoscience. I want more articles that try to be neutral like this one instead of editors vandalizing articles on here with their own political biases as a coping mechanism for their own personal life issues. Seriously, the fact that the rest of this site isn't as good as this article is proof that most of the top contributors to this site should've been permabanned years ago. And I have the right to say this as someone who's not an editor but has read thousands of articles on here. |
|
Maybe you can ask him whether he still is a Rossi fan seven years after penning the paen? How long till he admits he was wrong? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One other point I should bring up: anything groundbreaking related to energy storage or generation would always be an issue of national security. Geopolitical instability, the formation of market bubbles and economic instability, and other side effects would make it logical to keep such technology secret and wait for intermediate technologies to soften the blow. For instance, you don't want the energy cells of science fiction to be dropped on society since every thief around would be sapping power from power lines using drones and wars would eventually start. So keep this in mind when you think about advanced technology. If something like cold fusion could work, it would be revealed after hot fusion became successful and more established. ] (]) 03:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
Reader: They split the bill. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:You fell for snake oil and you don't even realize it, shame! ] (]) 14:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
] (]) 03:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:]. --] (]) 06:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Topic of Article == |
|
:I apologise for not understanding what I presume was intended to be a joke (re splitting the bill, that is). But, anyway, in response Price suggests you look at . --] (]) 17:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::"About Rossi, I am happy to concede that he hasn’t made it to the finishing line, even at a modest 50% credence. I think there is still some reason to think that he may have something, based in part on claimed replications by far less colourful figures. But there is also evidence of dishonesty, especially in his dealings with his US backer, Industrial Heat.... My bets were settled in mid-2019. Our three judges, all physicists, agreed with my opponents that neither Brillouin nor Rossi had demonstrated evidence of LENR above 50% probability." Lol. ] (]) 11:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
{{Archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel like this article is less about cold fusion and more about the Pons and Fleischmann Experiment. I know that experiment is essentially the most widely reported event relating to cold fusion, but shouldn't it get its own article that could focus on government involvement and backlash and important history stuff. However, the cold fusion article should probably be more about the science behind how cold fusion could work, maybe bringing up other possible ways to do cold fusions. You could even combine it with the muon-catalyzed fusion which I just realize has its own separate article. You could discuss why all the theoretical methods don't work or report on the state of research, which is mostly just people repeating the fact that the Fleischmann Pons Experiment doesn't work. |
|
== Rename page as LENR? == |
|
|
{{Archive top |result = No camouflage name. ] (]) 00:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)}} |
|
|
I think ColdFusion is now outdated and low energy nuclear reactions is preferred ] (]) 23:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:#People invent thing that does not work, give it name. |
|
|
:#Thing becomes known by that name. People know thing does not work. |
|
|
:#People who believe in thing use new name for thing to avoid association with name that stands for something that does not work. |
|
|
:#Thing still does not work. |
|
|
:We should use the common name, not the camouflage name. --] (]) 05:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Not quite correct. It does work, but only under difficult to establish conditions. --] (]) 17:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And ghosts do exist, but every time a skeptic looks for them, they make sure not to show themselves. ] (]) 11:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hahaha! --] (]) 12:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the term cold-fusion, which I thought was just any fusion at temperatures significantly lower than how it happens now. The fact that there is a separate article for muon-catalyzed fusion indicates I could be wrong, but that might just be because this article, again, mostly just describes the events, reports, and criticisms of the Fleischmann-Pons Experiment. |
|
== Citation methodology == |
|
|
{{Archive top |result = No. ] (]) 00:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would attempt this stuff myself, but it would involve making a new article, combining others, and completely changing this one, that I don't have the Misplaced Pages skills for. I would also need to do a ton of research into other methods of cold-fusion, which are heavily diluted in the sea of Fleischmann-Pons reports. ] (]) 20:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
I happened to look at this article today and noticed that it uses a mixture of ] and inline citations in a style similar to ]. I note also, relying on ], that parenthetical referencing is deprecated in Misplaced Pages. Unless there is objection here, I will probably edit this article to convert instances of those inline references to ]. If you have objections to this or thoughts about it, please comment here. ] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 08:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Is there any {{tq|science behind how cold fusion could work}}? With ]? If you want speculation, Misplaced Pages is the wrong place. --] (]) 06:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
<br />{{not done}} -- I was in the middle of other things when I left the earlier comment and, on a second look today, I didn't see anything I thought needed changing. ] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 09:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::This article is about "the Pons & Fleischmann Experiment and related follow-up work". That's a self-contained topic, and it's notable. So it's perfectly appropriate for there to be a Misplaced Pages article about "the Pons & Fleischmann Experiment and related follow-up work". And that's what this article is. |
|
{{Archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Separately, you can say that the title of this article (i.e., "cold fusion") does not reflect the content (i.e., "the Pons & Fleischmann Experiment and related follow-up work"). Now, my own opinion is that the current title is fine, but if you have other suggestions you can offer them! You can even propose to re-title this article literally "the Pons & Fleischmann Experiment and related follow-up work", although I would vote against that one, it's a bit clunky! |
|
== Recent updates == |
|
|
{{Archive top |
|
|
|result = ] plus ] and ]. ] (]) 00:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Separately, you can say that there ought to be a Misplaced Pages article on "approaches to nuclear fusion power that don't involve heating something up very much", I guess including scientifically-valid ideas like ] and ], and also things that don't actually exist like "the Pons & Fleischmann Experiment and related follow-up work". My opinion is that the current setup—where we have separate dedicated articles for those three things, but no overarching one—is the right setup. I think they don't just don't have much to do with each other in any detail. Let people interested in muon-catalyzed fusion read an article about muon-catalyzed fusion, without having to wade through a ton of other stuff thrown in that has nothing to do with muon-catalyzed fusion. There's plenty to say about muon-catalyzed fusion by itself—it's not a short article. And they're all findable as is—the legitimate approaches all have links from ] already. So I don't think merging them makes sense, nor making a new overarching article. See what I mean? --] (]) 21:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
Would anyone care to write about the recent ARPA-E announcement for up to $10M "... to establish clear practices to determine whether low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) could be the basis for a potentially transformative carbon-free energy source." |
|
|
(DE-FOA-0002784 and 2785: Exploratory Topics SBIR/STTR) https://arpa-e.energy.gov/news-and-media/press-releases/us-department-energy-announces-10-million-study-low-energy-nuclear |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Rename article to LENR (Low-energy Nuclear Reactions) == |
|
Based on claims of transmutation and new processes for it (via LENR) much more money could be devoted to this application. Up to an additional funding of $50M has been set aside for "... Converting UNF Radioisotopes into Energy (CURIE) ...to enable commercially viable reprocessing of used nuclear fuel (UNF) ..." (DE-FOA-0002691and DE-FOA-0002692). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This has become the accepted name in the field of research , with ICCF as its conference name. The present article is about the historic Ponds-fleischmann experiment which is now a tiny subset of modern investigations. So a new umbrella article is needed, which over time would be expanded by users to encompass a categorized list of sub areas] (]) 05:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
https://arpa-e-foa.energy.gov/Default.aspx#FoaId1adbff8d-435f-4644-a570-282d3e67116c .... ] (]) 18:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:The people who still believe in this can change the in-universe name to "Squirrel manticore foomp" for all we care. Cold fusion is the common name. --] (]) 10:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
:I would gladly do it, except I don't want to get involved with a battle with the guerilla skeptics. However, I am planning to report a particular individual for ] when I have the time to do that! --] (]) 18:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Actually, I was hoping that one of the skeptics would try to address it. I don't think that they can block its insertion, so it would be interesting to see how they can introduce it and try to reverse its impact. .... ] (]) 01:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@] The real question is if anyone ELSE has written about it. This source is a primary source and press release, and utterly unsuitable for inclusion in this article. We need reliable, independent third party sources. — '''''<small>]<sup>(])<small><sub>(]<sup>(])</sup></sub></small></sup></small>''''' 09:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hat|Tangent on sourcing in general}} |
|
|
::::Research on cold fusion has to be done by press release. It's a tradition, or an old charter, or something. --] (]) 10:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The work of the sceptics on wikipedia is done by reflex action, combined with closing the eyes. It's a tradition, or an old charter, or something. People who have their eyes open and their mind switched on, on the other hand, will go to the press release and see at the bottom 'click for more information', which takes you to the official page (not a press release), giving more details plus an application form. We can't expect the sceptics to do that of course, as it might destroy their case. --] (]) 10:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Yawn. The point was that cold fusers tend to shout a lot in public about stuff that later turns out to be wrong or overblown. See ]. |
|
|
::::::For Misplaced Pages, it is not interesting to check a primary source when there are no secondary sources that would allow us to mention it. Also, it is not to everybody's taste to dig into every dunghill in the hope to find a diamond. Can we stop this? The source is insufficient according to ], case closed. --] (]) 11:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Another instructive instance of sceptics working away hard at their business! If the ''rules'' say an official announcement by a US govt. source is not a good source, then there's something seriously wrong with the rules. It is a plain ''fact'' that the DoE is funding investigations into LENR, and an encyclopedia is supposed to be a source of facts. Or am I wrong to state that? --] (]) 12:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Yes, you're wrong. The encyclopedia is based more on ''settled knowledge'' than undigested fact(oid)s. ] (]) 12:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::{{tq|If the rules say an official announcement by a US govt. source is not a good source, then there's something seriously wrong with the rules}} If someone had said that before ], a lengthy explanation of why the rules are fine in that regard would have had to follow. Now, it should be clear to everybody that being part of the US government and being a reliable source are completely unrelated. |
|
|
::::::::If you want to change the rules, ] is thataway. This page is for improving the article. I am hatting this tangent. --] (]) 12:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
::::To quote from WP on primary sources: "Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and ''common sense'', and should be discussed on article talk pages." There's a real shortage of common sense in the way the rule is being used in the above. --] (]) 14:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::My ''common sense'' tells me that we won't know if this will have any sort of impact on the world at large if we don't see sources like newspapers and the like picking up on it. We can afford to wait for that to happen, there are no deadlines here. ] (]) 14:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::In view of your comment I've removed that edit. --] (]) 15:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::please Google DE-FOA-0002785 or DE-FOA-0002784 for public coverage of the FOA. .... ] (]) 18:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Well done! So there is a secondary source. Is ']' happy now that his objection has been dealt with? Can https://www.instrumentl.com/grants/funding-opportunity-announcement-de-foa-0002784-exploratory-topics be given as a reference, or is there some other problem? --] (]) 19:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Indiscriminate content scrapers are not secondary sources. ] (]) 19:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Ollie, your POV is showing. |
|
|
::::::::Georgia Tech chose to communicate the announcements by combining information from two FOAs and adding comments. |
|
|
::::::::13. ARPA-E Exploratory Topics - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions |
|
|
::::::::Deadline for Questions: 11/4/2022, 5 PM ET |
|
|
::::::::Full Application Due: 11/15/2022, 9:30 AM ET |
|
|
::::::::Approximately $10 million is to be shared between two FOAs, DE-FOA-0002784 and DE-FOA-0002785. DE-FOA-0002785 is intended for SBIR and STTR eligible applicants. This announcement is purposely broad in scope, and will encourage the submission of the most innovative and unconventional ideas in energy technology. The objective of this solicitation is to support high-risk R&D leading to the development of potentially disruptive new technologies across the full spectrum of energy applications. Topics under this FOA will explore new areas of technology development that, if successful, could establish new program areas for ARPA-E, or complement the current portfolio of ARPA-E programs. The topic under consideration for these two FOA’s is low energy nuclear reactions. ] (]) 02:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::They repost everything - hence, indiscriminate. We do not need a reposting service, we need a proper news outlet with an editorial staff. (Also not the new energy times). Wake me up when a newspaper writes about it. ] (]) 11:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::A grant announcement doesn't mean anything to the development of LENR, why would it fit into this article? We don't even know who would be doing the research, much less what the outcome would be. If it were covered widely in third-party sources then we might cover it here as a 'future research' angle, but as it is we don't even know if this grant will get picked up. This isn't news, it's just hopeful and wishful thinking. — '''''<small>]<sup>(])<small><sub>(]<sup>(])</sup></sub></small></sup></small>''''' 22:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Cleverphrase: I suspect that most readers would recognize that ARPA is putting money where they have done some study. The FOA states: |
|
|
::::::::"The objective of this solicitation is to support high-risk R&D leading to the development of potentially disruptive new technologies across the full spectrum of energy applications." |
|
|
::::::::ARPA is "putting our money where their mouth is" rather than, like some people who are "putting their mouth where some money is." ] (]) 02:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::All that is beside the point. You may be convinced that there must be something there by the fact that someone decided to spend money on that hypothetical something. But the real question is: is this good enough for mentioning in the article? Is it encyclopedic? Are there secondary sources that talk about it? If the answer is no, we cannot add it. Misplaced Pages is tertiary literature. We cannot just skip step two of the sequence "something happens - ] talk about it - Misplaced Pages talks about it". Why don't you just wait until step two? Why is that so difficult to understand? --] (]) 06:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Answers: (i) it ''is'' good enough (ii) it ''is'' encyclopedic (iii) there ''are'' secondary sources (iv) why ''not'' do it now? The sooner the better! --] (]) 08:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::@] (i) it's not (at least not for this article) (ii) there is not data to report on, this is just news about possible future research, that's not the purpose of an encyclopaedia (iii) not really, all we have are some press releases and a primary source (iv) Please see ]. I do understand where you are coming from, but as a user who showed up here 10 years ago, crusaded for LENR, got topic banned from cold fusion, then moved on to the rest of Misplaced Pages and actually learned what it is about, ran new page patrol for a few years, and watched all the other things that people ''really care about and want to have on Misplaced Pages''... that's just not what Misplaced Pages is for. We aren't here to ], nor are we a place to spread the news about something that isn't being talked about elsewhere. Generally the news on something needs to be pretty widespread before it gets included here. If and when the (mainstream) scientific community pulls its head out of its arse and realises that there is something strange going on with LENR (the reputation trap turns around), then we can change the tune of this article, until then, we wait. — '''''<small>]<sup>(])<small><sub>(]<sup>(])</sup></sub></small></sup></small>''''' 10:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Here's a : "'Nobody should trust Misplaced Pages,' its co-founder warns: Larry Sanger says site has been taken over by left-wing 'volunteers' who write off sources that don't fit their agenda as fake news". Sanger may not have been referring to this kind of subject but the general picture in contexts such as these is the same. '''Please do not try and 'fix' this page so that people cannot see this comment.''' --] (]) 17:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::You're quoting the ''Daily Mail'' and Larry Sanger?!? Case closed. We do not indulge the crank-o-sphere. If there any decent sources, bring them; but until then we're done here. I suggest closing. ] (]) 17:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Sanger also thinks ] is right, is an anti-vaxxer, and thinks that the Jan 6 riot was a false flag operation by Antifa. Hitching your rhetorical wagon to his is not a great idea. - ] (]) 17:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::And he says that fascism is "left-wing", which probably means his position is farther right than Mussolini. |
|
|
:::::::::Of course, none of all this is relevant to the article. Can we stop this? --] (]) 18:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Sure! I have more important things to do than deal with the clear ] in this article. --] (]) 18:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Archive bottom}} |
|
|
== 1992 NYTimes about cold fusion in Japan == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Archive top|reason= The source is already used in ]. ] (]) 16:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps a bit of perspective on what sort of coverage would merit inclusion in this article would be helpful. In 1992, Japan began a focused $20 million(in 1992 dollars) program that, crucially, was covered by the New York Times.<ref>{{Citation |title=Cold Fusion, Derided in U.S., Is Hot In Japan | author=Andrew J. Pollack | publisher = The New York Times | date=November 17, 1992 | url=http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/17/science/cold-fusion-derided-in-us-is-hot-in-japan.html}}</ref> Given this coverage by a major mainstream press outlet, it has enough ] that it is included as a single sentence in the body of the article. If this new request for proposals becomes a program with similar coverage in mainstream press I would support a similar amount of coverage in the article. Without such press coverage or similar secondary sourcing, it doesn't merit similar inclusion. --] (]) 00:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Reference talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:I see editor Ixocatus has been busy closing discussions again. I wonder what right he has to do this all by himself? What's the official situation there? |
|
|
|
|
|
::Anyway, when I have time I will be giving my views regarding Wickedpedia on my own talk page. ] (]) ] (]) 13:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)13:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|Noren}} See section ]. Pollack already mentioned. ] (]) 16:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Article issues and classification == |
|
|
|
|
|
:The article fails the ] #1 and #4. There is a March 2021 "citation needed" tag and a November 2015 "clarification needed". There are unsourced (yet untagged) paragraphs, subsections, and sections. -- ] (]) 17:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Cultural references == |
|
|
|
|
|
It's a bit silly the way some people don't want the reference to cold fusion being in a video game to be included, methinks. But I'm not bothered at all, it's just a pity that my time taken adding the link to it was wasted. ] (]) 14:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It could be okay if the source actually supported the text. ] (]) 14:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
While I personally don't believe cold fusion would work, I like that this article tries to be neutral on the subject instead of just being predatory like most other controversial articles. Its still not perfect but reading this article made me very angry at the mainstream scientific establishment for their behavior. I'm happy the article didn't accuse the field of being pseudoscience. I want more articles that try to be neutral like this one instead of editors vandalizing articles on here with their own political biases as a coping mechanism for their own personal life issues. Seriously, the fact that the rest of this site isn't as good as this article is proof that most of the top contributors to this site should've been permabanned years ago. And I have the right to say this as someone who's not an editor but has read thousands of articles on here.
One other point I should bring up: anything groundbreaking related to energy storage or generation would always be an issue of national security. Geopolitical instability, the formation of market bubbles and economic instability, and other side effects would make it logical to keep such technology secret and wait for intermediate technologies to soften the blow. For instance, you don't want the energy cells of science fiction to be dropped on society since every thief around would be sapping power from power lines using drones and wars would eventually start. So keep this in mind when you think about advanced technology. If something like cold fusion could work, it would be revealed after hot fusion became successful and more established. 50.81.18.120 (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I feel like this article is less about cold fusion and more about the Pons and Fleischmann Experiment. I know that experiment is essentially the most widely reported event relating to cold fusion, but shouldn't it get its own article that could focus on government involvement and backlash and important history stuff. However, the cold fusion article should probably be more about the science behind how cold fusion could work, maybe bringing up other possible ways to do cold fusions. You could even combine it with the muon-catalyzed fusion which I just realize has its own separate article. You could discuss why all the theoretical methods don't work or report on the state of research, which is mostly just people repeating the fact that the Fleischmann Pons Experiment doesn't work.
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the term cold-fusion, which I thought was just any fusion at temperatures significantly lower than how it happens now. The fact that there is a separate article for muon-catalyzed fusion indicates I could be wrong, but that might just be because this article, again, mostly just describes the events, reports, and criticisms of the Fleischmann-Pons Experiment.
I would attempt this stuff myself, but it would involve making a new article, combining others, and completely changing this one, that I don't have the Misplaced Pages skills for. I would also need to do a ton of research into other methods of cold-fusion, which are heavily diluted in the sea of Fleischmann-Pons reports. MrMasterGamer0 (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
This has become the accepted name in the field of research , with ICCF as its conference name. The present article is about the historic Ponds-fleischmann experiment which is now a tiny subset of modern investigations. So a new umbrella article is needed, which over time would be expanded by users to encompass a categorized list of sub areasLawrence18uk (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale..jpg){kind=small}
