| Revision as of 16:36, 22 May 2011 edit99.120.10.38 (talk) →Please stop making personal attacks here: new section← 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) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" |
|
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|- |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|align="center"|] |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|- |
|
|
| '''IMPORTANT''': This is ''']''' the place to discuss your personal opinions of the merits of cold fusion research. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, which is about cold fusion and the associated scientific controversy surrounding it. See ] and ]. If you wish to discuss or debate the status of cold fusion please do so at . |
|
|
| colspan="1" style="border-top:1px solid black;" | |
|
|
|} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1date=23:33, 16 Aug 2004 |
|
|action1date=23:33, 16 Aug 2004 |
| Line 16: |
Line 12: |
|
|action2=FAR |
|
|action2=FAR |
|
|action2date=18:42, 6 January 2006 |
|
|action2date=18:42, 6 January 2006 |
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/Cold fusion |
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Cold fusion |
|
|action2result=demoted |
|
|action2result=demoted |
|
|action2oldid=34106403 |
|
|action2oldid=34106403 |
| Line 58: |
Line 54: |
|
|maindate=August 24, 2004 |
|
|maindate=August 24, 2004 |
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|
|otd1date=2012-03-23|otd1oldid=483531088 |
|
|
|otd2date=2014-03-23|otd2oldid=600909183 |
|
|
|otd3date=2017-03-23|otd3oldid=771633321 |
|
|
|otd4date=2019-03-23|otd4oldid=888975125 |
|
|
|otd5date=2024-03-23|otd5oldid=1214943052 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Physics |importance=High }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Energy|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=High}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
] |
|
|
<!-- Template:User article ban arb --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{press |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{physics|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{Rational Skepticism|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{pressmulti |
|
|
|author= ] |
|
|author= ] |
|
|date= Tuesday, 3 February 2009 |
|
|date= 3 February 2009 |
|
|url= http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/so-is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1543527.html |
|
|url= http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/so-is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1543527.html |
|
|title= So is Misplaced Pages cracking up?:It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Misplaced Pages is plagued by endless hoaxes, and lurches from one cash crisis to another. Will it become a footnote in the history of the web? |
|
|title= So is Misplaced Pages cracking up?:It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Misplaced Pages is plagued by endless hoaxes, and lurches from one cash crisis to another. Will it become a footnote in the history of the web? |
| Line 75: |
Line 74: |
|
|section= Home:Life&Style:Gadgets&Tech:Features |
|
|section= Home:Life&Style:Gadgets&Tech:Features |
|
|collapsed=yes}} |
|
|collapsed=yes}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ps|style=long}} |
|
__FORCETOC__ |
|
|
|
{{merged-from |List of references to cold fusion in popular culture}} |
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" |
|
|
| |
|
|
This article was the subject of mediation during 2009 at ]. |
|
|
|} |
|
|
{{auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=10 |dounreplied=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|counter = 39 |
|
|counter = 48 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 8 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(10d) |
|
|
|
|algo = old(180d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Cold fusion/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Cold fusion/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
| Line 92: |
Line 88: |
|
|target=Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_index |
|
|target=Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_index |
|
|mask=Talk:Cold fusion/Archive <#> |
|
|mask=Talk:Cold fusion/Archive <#> |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== This Article == |
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, some of this article is just written HORRIBLY! I mean, just a mess. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
::It is indeed a mess. That is because irrational hard-core opponents of cold fusion insist on filling it with nonsensical, hand-waving objections to the research, instead of facts from the peer-reviewed literature, and an organized overview of the subject. Whenever anyone who knows about cold fusion tries to correct their nonsense, they ban that person from Misplaced Pages. This an acute example of the problems with the Misplaced Pages structure. Experts are denigrated and thrown out. Biased, ignorant fools dominate. This is true of the article on cold fusion and many other subjects I have checked. - Jed Rothwell <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I'm surprised that this comment from Jed Rothwell has not been removed yet. Does it have anything to do with ScienceApologist having been indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages ? Could it be that his mob has been silenced ?] (]) 11:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Nah, it's just that nobody cares (aka the continued existence of this comment here is not currently causing any particular disruption, tempers have cooled down since the last fights, etc. I could explain more reasons but I would fall foul of ]). --] (]) 12:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::I am also surprised to see this remark is not been erased. The thought police must be busy elsewhere. One of them, TenOfAllTrades, deleted another remark of mine, explaining that I am a "banned user" -- an honor I was unaware of: |
|
|
|
|
|
::::http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Energy_Catalyzer&diff=421321503&oldid=421320271 |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I grant that remark was snide but I thought it was pretty funny. A pity Mr. (Ms.?) TenOfAllTrades has no sense of humor. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Would it be possible for me to ban Mr. TenOfAllTrades? He contrived to lock me out of that article, which is a neat trick. I do not know the rules, or why some people are given these powers and not others, but it would be fun going around locking people out for no apparent reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::To be serious for a moment, as I see it, what happens here is none of my business. I do not feel that I have any right to complain about your rules and customs. I have no idea who is in charge here but whoever it is, they have every right to lock me and other knowledgeable people out while they fill this article with blather. I am not being sarcastic. - Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
To the extent that anyone or almost anyone* is invited to edit articles, then the articles are "everybody's business". I will agree that this article has problems, but I don't think I would call it "a mess". It simply focuses too much on all the negatives that could be dredged up about CF, and ignores the positives as much as can be gotten-away-with. I expect some more positives to become non-ignorable in the future, as more results come in from pressurized-deuterium experiments. So, I'm merely biding my time. (*an example of someone not invited to edit: a spammer. Jed, I recall you got banned partly because some idiot wanted to expand the definition of "spammer" to include folks who like to brag about themselves with their signatures. By that argument, everyone who attches "M.D." or "PhD" after their names should also be banned. The REAL person to ban should have been the idiot....) ] (]) 18:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You wrote: "It simply focuses too much on all the negatives that could be dredged up about CF. . ." It is much worse than that. Looking at the section on calorimetry, for example, these negatives are not "dredged up" so much as invented out of whole cloth. They are not a bit true, and even if they were true, they would not apply to any experiment I know of. They would apply only to an experiment in which the temperature is measured at one location in the electrolyte. No one does that. Fleischmann and Pons measured with an array of sensors ~1 cm long as I recall. Most others measure outside the cell, either at the walls or with flow or Seebeck calorimetry. This section is the product of the fevered imaginations of people who know nothing about the experiments or calorimetry. I have not carefully reviewed the other sections but at a glance they are equally bad. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I also noted that some of the references say the opposite of what is claimed in the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
:When I wrote that this is filled with blather, I meant it. That is no exaggeration. I believe the main problem is the "Randy in Boise" effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Randy_in_Boise. Plus in this case the anti-science, anti-intellectual mindset of people who oppose cold fusion. However, as I said, and I sincerely meant, if that is how people here want things to be, it is none of my business. - Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::Bring the evidence, and I'm sure it can be added to the article. But blaming a vast conspiracy on skeptics who are quite educated, pro-science and pro-intellectual is amusing at best. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 22:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The evidence can be found in the peer-reviewed literature, which you can read in any university library or at LENR-CANR.org. You will see that it contradicts the assertions made in this article. I said nothing about a conspiracy and I do not believe in one. This article is full of errors so it cannot be the product of people who are "quite educated" about cold fusion. Perhaps they are educated about other subjects. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Note that even if you do not believe in the scientific method, replication, or peer-review, and you have therefore concluded that the literature is mistaken, in a conventional reference book of this nature you would still be obligated to describe what the literature says. Not what you believe to be true, but what the experiments have revealed and the researchers have concluded. This article ignores the literature and describes only the self-published pet theories of a handful of anti-cold fusion fanatics. - Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Let me try to be a little more specific and helpful. As I mentioned, the section on calorimetry is now devoted to crackpot theories about imaginary calorimeters. I suggest that the authors of this article should read the literature and learn about actual calorimeters used in cold fusion studies. They should write conventional descriptions of these calorimeters, with schematics and sample data. They might say that a variety of different types (isoperibolic, flow, Seebeck) have been used in order to eliminate systematic errors. They might describe a few of the challenges of calorimetry as applied to cold fusion, and improvements that have been made over the years to meet these challenges. I wrote something along these lines here: http://en.citizendium.org/Cold_fusion |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Even if the Misplaced Pages authors are convinced that all published calorimetric data from all ~200 laboratories is wrong, they should report what the literature describes, not what they themselves think of it. The present article describes only the authors' opinions and theories, with no description of the claims. - Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::::Did you find that amusing Orange Marlin? Someone who is pro-science pro-intellectual and educated would, at this point, begin actually researching the topic in primary literature. If that doesn't interest you, perhaps you should leave the article to people who actually care enough to do some work. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:::::A problem now rears its ugly head, that even the pro-CF people have to work with rather than against. This is a Misplaced Pages Policy regarding the uses of primary sources. A FEW can be offered as references, but they can't be used as direct sources of data for an article (almost any in-depth article). The Policy is that articles must get their data from secondary and even tertiary sources, articles about other articles, that is. Thus, while there are useful articles regarding CF experiments using electrolysis, I've been waiting for something like 2 years for some appropriate articles to appear regarding the direct pressurization of deuterium into palladium. The primary articles exist, but apparently they haven't caught the attention of most folks who write the kind of articles that Misplaced Pages wants as sources. ] (]) 06:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::And it's even worse. I'm reading some sources (the kind wikipedia likes) to add more stuff into the article, and they treat pressurization of deuterium as something ludicrous. You should be familiar with the caveats they list; citing from memory: molecules in the solid are farther apart than in the gas so they should have lower fusion rates, such high pressures are unattainable by simple electrolysis, the pressures would break the palladium rod, etc. (btw, I'm not interested in entering a looong discussion in technical details, just commenting on what I read) --] (]) 08:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Enric Naval wrote: "And it's even worse. I'm reading some sources (the kind wikipedia likes) to add more stuff into the article, and they treat pressurization of deuterium as something ludicrous. You should be familiar with the caveats they list; citing from memory: molecules in the solid are farther apart than in the gas . . ." |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Those are not caveats. They are facts well known to people like Fleischmann. He literally wrote the book on metal lattices. If you are suggesting that fusion occurs because of pressurization, in a brute-force "squeezing" effect, that is ludicrous -- as you say. The pressure is typically 1 to 3 atm, so there would be fusion everywhere in nature it that were a factor. Your discussion appears to be a straw man: you are casting doubt about an assertion that no cold fusion researcher makes. Gas loaded systems work because the metal absorbs the hydrogen, not because hydrogen atoms are forced together or forced into the lattice under high pressure. What you are reading has no bearing on the subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::I suspect you are replacing facts about cold fusion with your own ideas, your own original research, and “caveats” that you mistakenly suppose the researchers never thought of. - Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::V wrote: “A problem now rears its ugly head, that even the pro-CF people have to work with rather than against. This is a Misplaced Pages Policy regarding the uses of primary sources. A FEW can be offered as references . . .” |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::That seems like an ill-advised policy. The farther removed from original sources you get, the more distorted and mistaken the report becomes. I have learned there are a number of other ill-advised policies here; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Expert_retention |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Anyway, primary or secondary, my point is that your sources and the text should be about cold fusion, not some other subject. This article tells the reader little or nothing about cold fusion. It does not say what the researchers do, what the main instruments they use are, what levels of power, energy, tritium or helium they measure, or any other relevant details. There is no sample data, a few inadequate schematics, and nothing about key concepts such as heat beyond the limits of chemistry or helium correlated with heat in approximately the ratio as it is with plasma fusion. This article should be titled "Imaginary skeptical objections to cold fusion." |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I do not understand why the skeptics feel they must hijack this article and make it about themselves, just because they do not believe the results. I am honestly mystified by that. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I am highly skeptical about creationism. I don’t believe a word of it. However, if I were writing an encyclopedia article about it, I would not devote the whole article to explaining "Why Jed thinks this can’t be true." I would leave out my opinions. As accurately as I can, I would report what the creationists say and what they think. If I asked a creationist "what is your source of information?" and she said, "the Bible" I would not say: "Sorry, that’s a primary source, we can’t include it" or "that is not a valid source of scientific information, we can’t include it." I would say: "Okay, what chapter and verse?" I would reference that verse and explain why the creationists think it proves their point. Let the reader decide whether it does or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::If I included skeptical objections to creationism, I would also include the Creationist's own rebuttals to these objections. I would not pretend the creationists never thought of these objections, or never tried to meet them. This cold fusion article is filled with skeptical objections. Most are physically impossible and irrelevant, like the nonsense in the calorimetry section. There are a few genuine issues, but the article does not point out that the researchers themselves knew about these issues, and addressed them in 1989. For example, the article mentions recombination: "Several researchers have described potential mechanisms by which this process could occur and thereby account for excess heat in electrolysis experiments." It should also say that in every actual experiment on record, these mechanisms have been ruled out by using closed cells with recombiners, by measuring the gas flow, or by assuming complete recombination occurs and counting only the heat above the limits of recombination. The text as written gives the reader the false impression that this objection applies to real experiments. That's either a stupid error or it is disinformation. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::As I said, the whole article is like this. Nearly every assertion is either factually wrong or distorted. The only mention of tritium says that it was not replicated. It was replicated in over 100 labs, at levels ranging from ~40 times background to millions of times background. Again, whoever wrote that is either grossly ignorant, or he knows the facts and he is writing anti-cold fusion propaganda. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Anyway, I am glad I have nothing to do with this article. I know hundreds of cold fusion researchers. They seldom agree about anything, but all of the ones who looked at this article agree it is outrageous nonsense. Not only is this nonsense, it is not very good at what it sets out to do, which is to discredit the field. McKubre and I have both said we could write far more damning critiques of cold fusion than any skeptic. I have done that for several experiments, which is why I have some prominent enemies in the field. The authors here invent imaginary problems. I know of many actual, real weaknesses that the authors of this article have never dreamed of. The papers at LENR-CANR describe them; the skeptics have not even bothered to read papers that support their point of view! I just uploaded one yesterday. - Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Regarding these items posted by two different people: "molecules in the solid are farther apart than in the gas" and "Gas loaded systems work because the metal absorbs the hydrogen, not because hydrogen atoms are forced together or forced into the lattice under high pressure." Actually, if fusion actually happens, it is at least partly because inside the metal, the hydrogen does not exist as molecules or as atoms. The absorption process causes the gas to dissociate into electrons and nuclei. ''Even without fusion, such dissociation is the only way to explain why hydrogen can permeate palladium like a sponge, '''when helium (a smaller atom!) can't'''''. So, in an electrolysis experiment when absorption takes place at atmospheric pressure, it can take a long time for enough bare hydrogen nuclei to get into the metal, for fusion to have a chance of occurring, while in a pressurization experiment, getting enough loose hydrogen nuclei into the metal is relatively easy. This is just simple logic and, as I've written before on this page, I'm pretty sure that '''every''' pressurized-deuterium experiment, with palladium, has produced anomalous energy. Talking about molecules inside the metal simply distracts from the observed facts (easy permeation, for hydrogen only, being one fact that nobody argues about). ] (]) 19:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::(My mistake, I keep using "molecules" for everything....) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Fleischmann did not "literally wrote the book on metal lattices". Let's not distort reality to make some authors look more authoritative than they really are, please. A couple of RS say that he didn't appear to have read the literature on the topic before starting, and that the phenomena inside lattices was well understood before Fleischmann started studying it (again citing from memory, btw). --] (]) 09:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== DIA document == |
|
|
|
|
|
Freelion thinks a certain DIA document should be discussed in the article . This DIA document appears to be leaked, not published, which means that according to , it should not be used as a source. Is there something I am missing? (See also ) ] (]) 01:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:What you are missing is the fact that the Defense Intelligence Agency e-mailed hundreds of copies of this report to scientists worldwide, as well as a copy to Rothwell with permission for him to upload it. It may thus quite reasonably be considered official, and a valid source as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. ] (]) 20:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::That's interesting Olorinish. I guess we could remove the source but what about the statement - is it contestable? Could I re-word the statement (as it is general info) and put it back into the intro without the source? Meanwhile, just for the record, can we consider www.lenr-canr.org as a reliable source? ] (]) 05:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The recent work and support is already described by other, sourced, statements. Regarding the question of whether lenr-canr.org is a reliable source, it depends on what the statement is. ] (]) 12:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Editors here may be advised to review Jed's comments at ] with regard to the website he promotes. ] <small>]</small> 19:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Are you following me LeadSongDog? You're very busy aren't you. Do you think you could find the time to answer my question at ]? Thank you for the internal link on lenr-canr.org, that's helpful, thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Olornish, the DIA reference does contain additional info about international experiments sponsored by state or major corporations which aren't mentioned in the article. ] (]), do you have any evidence of the DIA releasing that report? ] (]) 00:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Thanks to Leadsongdog we have an internal link to a conversation including the librarian of lenr-canr.org. He declares that he has permission to host all of the documents on the website. That means he has legally published these sources, which fulfills the requirements of ]. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Just to clarify, it's previously been shown that LENR-CANR may contain copyright violations: not all of the material is potentially a copyright violation, but some material hosted is included through under the permission of the author, not the copyright holder (the journal). Thus although LENR-CANR is no longer black listed, external links to articles on the site need to be checked to confirm that they meet the ] policy. - ] (]) 00:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::In that case I believe the DIA reference is OK. Jed Rothwell says that he has permission to host that report and as he says, all the copyright holders of all the reports he hosts have the opportunity to remove them. The DIA report is one he mentions. He says the DIA knows that he is hosting it and even cites his website as one of its references. This DIA report has been on his website for quite a while as is evident by a Google search - many other websites also link to the report on lenr-canr.org. So the DIA has had ample opportunity to ask him to remove it if it is in breach of their copyright. We can take it in good faith that this report is being published with the owner's permission so we are not knowingly breaching any copyright as per ] policy. ] (]) 03:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I do not know the copyright status of that article. However, just in the hope of clarifying the general situation, it doesn't really matter how long an article has been hosted on a site, as the copyright holder may simply be unaware that the article is there. More importantly, though, whether or not it is legally hosted, this isn't a reason for not using the article - it is only a reason for not linking to the article. The question as to whether or not the article has been formally published, or has been leaked, is a separate issue - a leaked document may not be a verifiable reliable source, but this isn't a copyright concern per se. - ] (]) 03:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::My previous comment argues that it is fair to assume this report has not been leaked and does not breach copyright. ] (]) 03:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::My two cents: I'm almost certain that anything/everything published by the U.S. Government is considered to be Public Domain (even when it's "classified" and kept secret). That's because of the "work for hire" rules associated with copyright ownership. Someone who pays someone else to create something can be the copyright owner. In the case of the U.S. Government, all its employees are paid by the U.S. Public. So, works produced by the U.S. Government are Public Domain. ] (]) 05:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Though there's a lot of discussion of the copyright status of the document above, I don't see that anyone has addressed Olorinish's central point, the question of whether this is a ] per Misplaced Pages standards. Has this document been published anywhere, or is there a reliable secondary source that discusses it? Private correspondence that is not remarked on by other sources does not meet our sourcing standards, even if it can be shown to be authentic and not encumbered by copyright. --] (]) 13:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::BAD assumption, Noren. The DIA document is '''not''' primary data generated by researchers in the field; it is a secondary source describing various primary sources, and therefore it doesn't need tertiary sources describing it. I will agree, however, that its status as a "publication" needs to be clarified before it can be used as a WikiPedia source-document. ] (]) 05:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Just above it was mentioned that this was mass-emailed to outside scientists by the department itself. That constitutes publishing. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, it sounds more like an emailing than a publishing. Is emailing reports the standard way of distributing them? I would guess that when they really want to publish a report, they put in on a web site or something. ] (]) 00:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Maybe if they REALLY REALLY want to publish it. That would definitely be something politically motivated. I've never heard of or seen that done before. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Well it has been published - on the LENR-CANR website. As mentioned above, the DIA has had ample opportunity to ask Rothwell to remove it if it is in breach of their copyright. We can take it in good faith that this report has being published with the DIA's permission. They even use this website as a reference. ] (]) 01:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Is there any objection to using this report in the article now? ] (]) 09:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
I still object to using it, since the DIA did not publish that report, which means that it likely does not represent the DIA's official position. Keep in mind that a very likely reason for not publishing such a report is that the evidence for cold fusion is still weak. If that changes, many organizations like the DIA will publish descriptions of it, after which this article should discuss it. Misplaced Pages isn't going anywhere. ] (]) 11:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::That doesn't fit any reasonable definition of "being published by DIA". Bilby's comment above would also apply. --] (]) 11:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Regarding "likely reason for not publishing...evidence is weak": note this article: which has been widely published, and the evidence is much thinner and more tenuous than that for cold fusion. From a statistical perspective, in fact, the evidence is quite dismal. So you that assertion, "likely reason for not publishing...evidence is weak", is baldly contradicted by empirical evidence. And furthermore, in such cases, we don't even think to question the "publishability". ]<sup>]</sup> 12:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::This in fact alludes to a more fundamental point: that historically speaking, strength/weakness of evidence, even plausibility, has not been a significant factor in decisions about information dissemination. But we have only to look at politics and religion to see that... ]<sup>]</sup> 12:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The attitudes of some folks around here is hilarious. Remember the "Pentagon Papers"? Where were the claims that those documents were forged or did not originate in the Pentagon? Why is it, just because '''this''' document is about Cold Fusion research and positive, its origin is questioned? What if it had been negative? I bet the detractors wouldn't waste two seconds getting it into the article and trumpeting such negative points! ] (]) 05:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::The bottom line is that the DIA report '''has''' been published by the LENR-CANR website. Olorinish is only speculating that this is not the DIA's official position. We can use the LENR-CANR website as the reliable source for this document. I have yet to find the rule on Misplaced Pages that specifies that a government report has to be officially released. ] (]) 03:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::This edit would give far too much weight to a minor event, the emailing of a report by its author to people she knows. That is very different from a major institution publishing a document, since it may not have received the full review that published documents receive. Linking to the LENR-CANR web site doesn't bother me; perhaps someone should place the link (without comment) with the other references after the word "fusion" in the phrase "However, a small community of researchers continues to investigate cold fusion..." in the introduction. Would people be OK with that? PS: I think "small community of researchers" should be replaced with "some researchers." ] (]) 12:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Thanks Olorinish, I agree that we could avoid trying to imply the DIA has an official position. There is a lot in that document which is neutral though, like the list of ongoing projects. Here are 12 projects which are not mentioned in the article: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::* Y. Iwamura at Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries detected transmutation of elements when permeating deuterium through palladium metal in 2002. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::*Additional indications of transmutation have been reported in China, Russia, France, Ukraine, and the United States |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::*Researchers in Japan, Italy, Israel, and the United States have all reported detecting evidence of nuclear particle emissions. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::*Chinese researchers described LENR experiments in 1991 that generated so much heat that they caused an explosion that was not believed to be chemical in origin. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::*Japanese, French, and U.S. scientists also have reported rapid, high-energy LENR releases leading to laboratory explosions, according to scientific journal articles from 1992 to 2009. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::*Israeli scientists reported in 2008 that they have applied pulsating electrical currents to their LENR experiments to increase the excess energy production. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::*As of 2008 India was reportedly considering restarting its LENR program after 14 years of dormancy. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::*U.S. LENR researchers also have reported results that support the phenomena of anomalous heat, nuclear particle production, and transmutation. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::*At the March 2009 American Chemical Society annual meeting, researchers at U.S. Navy SPAWAR Pacific reported excess energy, nuclear particles, and transmutation, stating that these effects were probably the result of nuclear reactions. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::*A research team at the U.S. company SRI International has been studying the electrochemistry and kinetics of LENR since the early 1990s, reporting excess heat and helium production. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::*In May 2002, researchers at JET Thermal in Massachusetts reported excess heat and optimal operating points for LENR manifolds. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::*Researchers at the China Lake Naval Air Warfare Center in California first reported anomalous power correlated with Helium-4 production in 1996 |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Plus there are more details about Y. Arata from Japan and Violante from Italy. ] (]) 04:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::(I haven't taken a through look, but, it those facts are notable, then it should be possible to find better sourcing for them.) --] (]) 08:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
* In case it wasn't obvious, LENR-CANR is not an appropriate source here. We previously had a "convenience link" to the DOE report which turned out to be editorialised, Rothwell is not an honest broker here. Also his claims to have copyright permissions are dubious - they include material from publishers of whom I have previously asked similar permission (i.e. permission to reprint content written by co-members of the editorial board of a website) and been refused. I simply do not believe any claim of permission for copyright material on LENR-CANR, anything they claim is public domain should be linked from the original public domain source not from LENR-CANR due to its biases, and anything whihc is only on LENR-CANR and not discussed in reliable independent sources should be rejected on that basis alone. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Letter to editor in bibliography == |
|
|
|
|
|
This was added to the bibliography, as "published in Nature". However, this is not an article but a letter to the editor. We shouldn't give it a place in the article unless a secondary source says that this specific letter was important for some reason. |
|
|
* {{Citation |
|
|
|last=Gryziński|first=Michał|authorlink=Free-fall atomic model |
|
|
|date=27 April 1989 |
|
|
|title=Cold fusion: what's going on? |
|
|
|journal=] |
|
|
|volume=338 |pages=712 |
|
|
|doi=10.1038/338712a0}} |
|
|
|
|
|
--] (]) 11:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I tried the link and the text is behind a paywall. It doesn't make sense to me that a "free for anyone" encyclopedia should link to sources that only people who have money can access. OTHER than that, though, the text could have been important if the Editors of Nature had replied to that letter. They represent a significant voice in the scientific community, see, especially in terms of mainstream thinking at the time such a reply was (if it was) published. ] (]) 17:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Disambig == |
|
|
|
|
|
Now the artist is said to be only about the Fleischmann–Pons set-up. Although the start of the history section is somewhat more general. Perhaps we should spin of the Fleischmann–Pons part to it's own article an keep this as a page about cold fusion in general. // ] (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Excess Heat and Energy Production == |
|
|
|
|
|
Since Scaramuzzi, F. (2000) is an accepted reference (117,119,124), I would suggest the following sentence, based on p. 9 of that source, be added to the end of the first paragraph of the section: Nevertheless, as early as 1997, at least one research group was reporting that, with the proper procedure, "...5 samples out of 6 that had undergone the whole procedure showed very clear excess heat production (4)."<ref> TBD </ref> ] (]) 07:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The article should give a general overview of replicability of excess heat in the field. What's the point of giving ] to this specific paper? This appear to be an isolated paper that had no repercusions in the general replicability of CF, we are giving it a lot of weight by mentioning it here, as if it was an important experiment. If the replicability of this specific experiment is so important and relevant, then why is this experiment not mentioned prominently in other sources since 2000? Why Hagelstein didn't consider it relevant enough to include it , where he was trying to show that cold fusion was a replicable effect. Have other groups replicated it successfully? We shouldn't include specific papers unless they are really relevant for the field or they are needed to explain specific events. This paper doesn't seem to cut it. --] (]) 10:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Enric, are you then advocating that we delete all 3 of the present references to Scaramuzzi's paper? They have been there for as long as I remember.] (]) 06:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::No, I'm saying to remove the mention of the "5 samples out of 6" experiment. --] (]) 07:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: If I find 5 better references in Hagelstein, are you likely to find any of them acceptable? This paper is 'relevant' in the field because Wiki editors have accepted it and it balances an argument put forth in the previous sentence.] (]) 07:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Mentioning this isolated paper gives it a lot of weight, as if it had a lot of relevance on assessing if the effect of excess heat has been reliably reproduced. I don't see any source saying that CF experiments now can be replicated reliably 5 out of 6 times, and this is the impression given to readers by citing this experiment there. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Re Hagelstein, I suppose that you mean the report that he sent to the DOE in 2004. The DOE 2004 report said, among other things, "Most reviewers, including those who accepted the evidence and those who did not, stated that the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented." They don't mention the 5 out of 6 experiment. --] (]) 21:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::it should be noted that: a) by "not repeatable" they, of course, mean not _reliably_ repeatable (and some would argue to the contrary - they are experimental setups which some claim reliably repeatable), and b) if "the effect" '''''had''''' "increased in over a decade of work ", that would in fact be evidence that it was really experimental error, rather than some interesting physical process, as a physical process would be consistent in its magnitude. (though oddly they seem to be placing the statement so as to persuade the ''opposite'') ]<sup>]</sup> 13:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== lenr-canr.org link in article == |
|
|
|
|
|
This website is cited or mentioned in many RS. i think it's time to accept that the wikipedia article should include it, even if it's only in the "external links" section. I propose this: |
|
|
:* <nowiki>lenr-canr.org</nowiki>, advocate website with bibliography. |
|
|
--] (]) 10:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:When I search on "contributory prefix:Talk:Cold fusion" I find three archives that have discussed this site, there may be others elsewhere. Unless the search misses a resolution, I see no excuse for assuming this would not be ].] <small>]</small> 13:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I think it would be POV to call it an advocacy site. Just because through a site you can learn about research that has been done about a topic, doesn't mean said site advocates a position about said topic. It seems ppl are assuming that not allowing access to research is the "default" position and represents neutrality, and thus allowing it would be "advocacy". Both the premise and the logic of that are false. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I received a lengthy email from {{lu|Abd}} responding to the above, in which he provided links to two discussions ] and . Since he chose off-wiki communication and I do not wish to proxy for anyone I'll simply pass those links along without further comment at this time. ] <small>]</small> 13:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The difficulty with lenr-canr.org is that they publish articles with the permission of authors. However, the authors don't always have the right to republish the articles, as the copyright belongs to the journal/publisher, and in some instances lenr-canr.org distributes papers which can reasonably be seen as copyright violations. Thus there has to be care taken about linking to individual articles in order to confirm that the individual link isn't ]. I'm not sure what this means with linking to the site as a whole, but I think there is some cause for considering the correct position. - ] (]) 00:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: That's one difficulty. Another is that some of the material hosted there has been found to contain editorialising. A third is that site owner Jed Rothwell is banned for pushing links to the site. Another is that it uncritically represents the minority view only, without adequate context (unlike mainstream science and popular science sites, which report both positive and negative results (the problem being, for cold fusionists at least, that the negative results vastly outweigh the positive). Has anyone here seen Brian Dunning's "Here Be Dragons" movie? 40 minutes well spent. For the rest - well, this is just like arguing with homeopaths. It doesn't matter how often you point out to them that their field has no credible scientific mechanism, they will still keep repeating the same assertions based on the same work by the same people. As Abd found, sometimes the only answer is to tell them to shut up and go away. If any proof emerges for the supposed field of low energy nuclear science then it will have to come fomr quantum physics, not from endless repetition of anomalous empirical results. This is what the DOE review said (and of course the CF crowd represent that as a call for further research, rather than an instruction to go away until there is a credible mechanism to support their theory). <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 01:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Publications == |
|
|
|
|
|
The last paragraph of the article states: |
|
|
|
|
|
"This decline of publications in cold fusion has been described as a characteristic of pathological science and of a "failed information epidemics". Cold fusion researchers occasionally succeed in publishing papers in prestigious journals; the 1993 paper in Physics Letters A is an important example because it was the last paper published by Fleischmann, and "one of the last reports to be formally challenged on technical grounds by a cold fusion skeptic".:1919" |
|
|
|
|
|
I would suggest adding: |
|
|
"On the other hand, the recently released Volume 4 of the peer-reviewed Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is a collection of 25 papers on the topic." |
|
|
|
|
|
Since at least 4 of these papers are review articles, I would further suggest that, not being primary sources, at least these 4 |
|
|
papers would be legitimate references for the Wiki article. |
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, does anyone know what the 1919 at the end of the paragraph means? ] (]) 07:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:That means "page 1919 in reference #68". |
|
|
|
|
|
:I understand that the JCNMS journal was formed by cold fusion proponents so they could have somewhere to publish. We could mention the journal in the article, as an example of how proponents had to build their own communication channels. |
|
|
|
|
|
:The journal editors are also CF proponents, right? And editors are the ones who assign the peer reviewers to each article. Reviews published only there are not independent from the field and should be taken with a grain of salt. --] (]) 10:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Thx, I would have assumed the page number to be in the reference, not the text. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I think that a mention of the community having to publish its own journal would be excellent. Do you have a reference that is acceptable? Do you want to open the can of worms about how 'powers' above journal editors have breached contracts to overrule editors of standard physics journals and books about to be published? As you say, if any editor did not want to publish an article, he has a list of reviewers who would be happy to 'kill' the paper. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Can you think of a journal that was started by opponents of any field of interest? (Maybe Nanotechnology?) Where would be the most appropriate place to publish a review? I know that some academics would try to publish in Nature just because it has high 'impact-factor and thus higher KPI points. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Should Die Naturwissenschaften be eliminated from the list of acceptable journals on Misplaced Pages, just because it now has an editor who is pro CF? If so, would you then say that it is 'OK' prior to that date? Do you think that editor would/should ask you to be a reviewer (assuming that you were qualified)? |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Would you consider this to be a valid review article? V. A. Chechin, V. A. Tsarev, M. Rabinowitz, and Y. E. Kim, “Critical Review of Theoretical Models for Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Metals,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 33, No. 3, 1994 ] (]) 06:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::] already mentioned having to create their own publications, I added the journal. You should find sources for that can of worms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Interesting read and neutrality == |
|
:::No opinion on that paper, I'll let others look at it. --] (]) 10:30, 11 May 2011 (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. |
|
:::: Enric. Thank you for separating the two groups of journals. However, it might be important to also remove the word "fringe" in the prior sentence, since that is POV, derogatory, and perhaps libelous. Replacing 'fringe' with 'alternative energy' would be safer and more accurate. (Unless you wish to claim Bubble Fusion to be 'fringe', as an example.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
Does anyone know what happened to the reference that goes with the citation ^ a b Labinger 2005 ? ] (]) 18:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
: Enric, Thx for fixing the Labinger 2005 Ref. ] (]) 19:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
:You fell for snake oil and you don't even realize it, shame! ] (]) 14:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:]. --] (]) 06:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Dilbert == |
|
== Topic of Article == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
. Enjoy :-) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
== Please stop making personal attacks here == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
Guy and others here have posted personal attacks against me, with demonstrably false accusations. This is against Misplaced Pages rules. They have erased my messages attempting to set the record straight. I have complained to Misplaced Pages management and I shall do so again, although I am sure it will have no effect. |
|
|
|
: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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::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. |
|
The skeptics can do or say anything they like here. They control the agenda. They have filled this article with nonsense, and banned people who disagree. This is their playground and if they wish to do that, it is none of my business. But I ask them to please stop libeling me personally. Lie about the research all you like, but do not lie about me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::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! |
|
I shall repeat the message I wrote, even though I am sure this will soon be deleted. I shall copy it to the Misplaced Pages management, and if this message is erased, I shall keep reverting it until you ban me again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::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) |
|
Guy wrote: "Another is that it uncritically represents the minority view only, without adequate context (unlike mainstream science and popular science sites . . ." That is incorrect. We have uploaded more negative papers and attacks against cold fusion at LENR-CANR.org than any other website. LENR-CANR.org is largest on-line collection of papers opposed to cold fusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Rename article to LENR (Low-energy Nuclear Reactions) == |
|
The assertion that I "editorialized" or modified the ERAB report is preposterous. Anyone can see I did not, because there is a link to the original at the top of the first page. Assertions that I am engaged in copyright violations or that I publish without permission are equally silly. For proof of that, see: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_72#Regarding_LENR-CANR.ORG |
|
|
|
: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) |
|
|
|
|
- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org |
|
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}
