![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 |
"Google+ Conversation with Al Gore about Combating Climate Change" (Published 11 Jun 2013): [1] Silent Key ( talk) 10:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Relevant question is at 18 mins 53 sec. Silent Key ( talk) 11:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The production isn't about low energy nuclear reactions in specfic. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 16:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
This text was added to the article:
provided the conditions to generate binary star Trojan wave packets from its nuclei. [2] This however to achieve the confinement and the fusion rate equivalent to that of muonic catalysis would require that they would move on circles in binary star configuration with cyclotron frequency and the speed of light in magnetic field of the order od 106 Tesla. Since the cyclotron orbit must be so tight and the mass ratio between the electron and the muon is slightly above the half of the fine structure constant this cyclotron frequency corresponds to the frequency of the gamma radiation slightly below the necessary to cause the electron-positron pair production. This is 0.1% of that what is inside the neutron stars magnetars and 10 000 times more then those in Tokamak which does not seem to be possible. The current experiments with exploding electromagnets can barely provide 1000 T for milliseconds. Pairing of this kind would require also highly improbable counter- channeling with simultaneous turn-on of the magnetic field during the close approach event since the generation of such probability focused states is a non-trivial problem of quantum control itself. The channeling nuclei would also have to have subluminal speeds and therefore relativistic energies and the fusion would have to occur inside the unit cell of Palladium. Even if the need of magnetic field could be weaken to the laboratory values or even removed and the compression and fusion occurred in Langmuir configurations consisting of one negative ion from the Palladium cell and two nuclei of Deuterium the rotation frequency of the pair to provide sufficient compression should be of the order of gamma radiation and the velocity also near the speed of light i.e. with the kinetic energy sufficient to cause the fusion on the direct scattering. The rate enhancement would be only due to prolong exposure to each other. No energy pumping during the electrolysis appears to provide such activation energy except the accelerator beam injection of at least 4 keV ions readily achievable in TV-like Farnsworth–Hirsch fusor. Since the negative ion so point-like is not really possible if the nuclei were squeezed by the circularly polarized electromagnetic field this field strength should be as giant as on the muonic hydrogen Bohr orbit which is about 2x1016 V/m but this is so strong that can accelerate the ion to 4 keV at the same Bohr radius distance. The three-body mechanism mentioned here assuming that first someone would somehow overcome the problem of no-go values of the parameters implied by the fusion conditions would however explain very low reproducibility of the experiment without the prior knowledge of the theory since the fussing three body configurations in magnetic and electric fields consisting of two ions of Deuterium and one crystal lattice ion of Palladium exist always within very complicates stability (and therefore fusion) diagrams that depend on the frequencies and strengths of the fields that could be generated by the build-up charges and currents inside the solid lattice [3] and by the applied voltage potential. Those could also depend on the level of Palladium doping and the electrode geometry.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |separator=
ignored (
help)
This looks like a unpublished synthesis or sources that are not related to each other, and I see a lot unsourced conclusions and connexions. Can someone confirm if this is original research? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 13:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
The section Proposed mechanisms should contain proposed mechanisms, foremost a few fusion theories, and the Widom-Larsen transmutation theory favoured by NASA. Then some of the most common objections. The article topic requires it. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 13:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe this article is a model for an extension of "Proposed mechanisms" ... which, for Cold Fusion, seems to be frozen at about 2004 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_temperature_superconductivity#Possible_mechanism -- giving a fairly clear review of another case where the effect is established, but there is no single agreed theory: There have been two representative theories for HTS ... (And I won't even suggest looking at theories of big-bang inflation, where there's been a paper a day for 20 years and still no agreement.) Alanf777 ( talk) 22:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Any reason why I should not be allowed to edit the article? 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 09:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The article should include aspects concerning qualitative reproducibility as is the case for nuclear phenomena like the distribution of atomic numbers of nuclear fission which is qualitative and not insist that the quantitative is the only acceptable reproducibility.
It seems that people who post here keep insisting tacitly that reproducibility is only quantitative ignoring known facts and by this deviating from the scientific method which they claim to apply especially to this article.-- 5.15.205.173 ( talk) 15:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
What about the quote (which seems that someone rather impolitely considered to be off-topic) from Brian Josephson explaining the situation of the reproducibility expectations, could it cited? Or is it also repugnant to some posting comments on ground of apparent lack of acceptance? I will restore the visibility of Brian Josephson's comment because there are no good reasons to be included in a collapsable box.-- 5.15.210.25 ( talk) 20:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Talk pages are not make general complaints or
WP:RGW.
|
---|
visibility of Brian's reply restored.-- 5.15.210.25 ( talk) 20:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC) |
I consider that the quote mentioned above is reliable and must included in the article. Any one wishing to disagree?-- 5.15.205.101 ( talk) 19:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to make editors aware that there is a discussion on the same topic at Talk:Reproducibility. This one is linked from there, but not vice versa (thus why I'm leaving this comment). Arc de Ciel ( talk) 10:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
DV has reverted an improvement I made to the sentence Since cold fusion articles are rarely published in peer reviewed scientific journals, the results do not receive as much scrutiny as more mainstream topics. It seems I now have to waste my valuable time explaining to even those of the most limited intellectual ability the reasoning behind this change.
It may be that CF articles are rarely published in peer reviewed journals (though not as rarely as one might think, as perusal of the LENR library will show). The fact that quite a number of papers on the subject do receive, and pass, scrutiny shows that some such research at least does stand up. It is therefore clearer to use the 'most' rather than the rather woolly original wording. The point basically is that a large amount of mediocre research can't cancel out the conclusions of high quality research -- in science one does not decide truth by putting good and poor quality research in one pot and doing some kind of averaging process. Lay readers can't be expected to figure this out and the wording should be designed not to mislead them. [subversive thought: do some people revert purely for the sake of reverting, rather than on the basis of careful thought? I'd love to know the motives.]-- Brian Josephson ( talk) 21:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand sources need to be about the topic in specific. I wonder where in the text do we need: Phillip Ball "Life's matrix: a biography of water"? The book [6] doesn't appear to be about cold fusion:
The book is from 2001 and has a few pages with an interesting rundown of the cold fusion things happening at the time. It is not a book about the article topic. It shouldn't be here.
The American Scientist "Case Studies in Pathological Science: How the Loss of Objectivity Led to False Conclusions in Studies of Polywater, Infinite Dilution and Cold Fusion" from 1992, is not about cold fusion either.
I note: The association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.
(part of the comment moved to a separate section Enric Naval ( talk) 09:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC))
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 05:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I dont see what it is doing here.
Why is this old book advertised on this page?
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 17:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I've added a section on last week's live webcast of Defkalion's Hyperion. I'm not sure the precise details of power, temperature, duration etc. so if anyone would like to plough through the hours of webcast to add the details to the page please feel free to do so! -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 16:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Let's be clear about this. Are you suggesting that the events transmitted by livestream didn't actually happen? How are you suggesting the movie was generated then, from a recording? If you think that, then how do you account for the fact that Mats Lewan, an accredited technology writer, said he was there and that he saw the demo portrayed in the video? Was he making that up?
If you aren't suggesting that (and that would be an extraordinary hypothesis indeed), and agree that the transmission (now archived and available on the same web page) shows an actual demonstration, then I agree that 'it can only be used for what it showed'. Yes indeed! And what it showed was, prima facie, a proof that the device was generating excess heat as claimed. Livestream is a reliable source because it transmits in real time, with no opportunity for fakery by editing. That is exactly why I consider the link should be given. I have no objection to people adding provisos, but the factual account of what happened, verifiable by viewing the video, which could not have been subject to editing as livestream transmit it and archive it as it happened live, should be restored. Saying livestream is not a reliable source (they would not be pleased at the suggestion that have doctored the video) is plain twaddle.
And as regards conclusions, the figures I quoted can be checked by viewing the video (which I bet none of the critics have done). I agree that conclusions need a reliable source, but the description I gave is precisely what you see in the video, with no interpretation added (but you can add a few 'apparently's if you wish, I have no objection to that).
Let me add one final point. A video on youtube would, I agree, prove little, as it can be doctored. Livestream offers no such opportunities to change content.-- Brian Josephson ( talk) 18:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
To have this misconceived, knee-jerk criticism, not based on proper scholarship, in no way surprises me. Unbalanced criticism is far too common with articles such as these. You will see, if you go far enough back in time, that I never proposed a youtube video as a reliable source. The video I had proposed for the article was a live webcast, archived in its original form by a reputable company. Mats Lewan was present during the webcast and I think we can take it that the video showed an event that actually happened or he would have said something about it, and that the meter readings seen in the webcast were the actual meter readings. Various tests were done to check that everything was in order but no doubt you will say that Defkalion found a way to fake everything. They did invite a number of people to be present but unfortunately Lewan was the only person who accepted which I suppose would have made faking easier -- if you subscribe to that hypothesis.
Perhaps you've been confused by the fact that I have provided a youtube video link on this talk page to assist in making a point. The video concerned is a clip from the original source, and I used a link to the that clip here because youtube provide a straightforward way to link to a specific point in a video, which as far as I am aware cannot be done with the original source. Ideally I would have inserted a still from the original video but I am told that this cannot be done in a talk page, which seems illogical as I would have been allowed to use it in the article itself. -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 08:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Let's see now. Suppose there's a football team X, which has a w'pedia article that among other things lists their successes in the World Cup, including the scores. A supporter watches the latest final on TV, which they win again. Is it in order for the supporter to add the success and final score to the list in the w'pedia article, based on what he has seen on the TV? Or is that OR?
Let me quote here "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source". In what way is Livestream not a reliable transmitter of live events? And if the defence of your position is that the events described (the Defkalion damo) never happened, where is your proof of that a priori implausible proposition? -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 07:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
-- Brian Josephson ( talk) 21:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I just want to pass on a view from an expert that some of the above discussion constitutes trolling. For example he states of one of the items (by DV):
"This was trolling. [The comment concerned] is off-the-wall, based on nothing other than prejudice and his own opinion, even worse than original research, it's a POV."
-- Brian Josephson ( talk) 09:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
(moved from section "some unnecessary things" Enric Naval ( talk) 09:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC))
Then:
* {{cite journal |ref=harv |separator=, | editor-last=Saeta | editor-first=Peter N. | title=What is the current scientific thinking on cold fusion? Is there any possible validity to this phenomenon? | periodical=Scientific American | pages=1–6 | date=October 21, 1999 | series=Ask the Experts | url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-scien | accessdate = 2008-12-17 | postscript = – introduction to contributions from: }} ** {{cite journal |ref=harv |separator=, | last=Schaffer | first=Michael J. | title=Historical overview, assessment | work={{harvnb | Saeta | 1999}} | pages=1–3 | date=October 21, 1999 | url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-scien }} ** {{cite journal |ref=harv |separator=, | last=Morrison | first=Douglas R.O. | title=Assessment | work={{harvnb | Saeta | 1999}} | pages=3–5 | date=October 21, 1999 | url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-scien&page=3 }} ** {{cite journal |ref=harv |separator=, | last=Heeter | first=Robert F. | title=Response | work={{harvnb | Saeta | 1999}} | pages=5–6 | date=October 21, 1999 | url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-scien&page=5 }}
The output of this stuff here looks very pretty. It is just that this article doesn't have the space for it and that it doesn't do anything useful. It is hard enough for the reader to navigate the wall of links without the duplicates.
A single link to the article would be a better approach. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 05:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
:* {{harvnb | Saeta | 1999 }} :* {{harvnb | Saeta | 1999 |loc= pages 1-3; "Historical overview, assessment"; Schaffer, Michael J.}} :* {{harvnb | Saeta | 1999 |loc= pages 3-5; "Assessment"; Morrison, Douglas R.O. }} :* {{harvnb | Saeta | 1999 |loc= pages 5-6; "Response"; Heeter, Robert F.}}
no edit proposed
WP:NOTFORUM. The patent office do not verify whether something works or not (they have allowed perpetual motion machine patents in the past until quite recently).
|
---|
On April 16 of 2013 the U.S. Navy was granted a patent on a process very similar to the 1989 work by P&F. The granted patent is on the US govt patent website. The Navy SPAWAR presentation at U of Missouri is easily available on YouTube, it's over an hour long. They document tritium, transmutation of one metal to several others, gamma rays, etc. They are using Palladium and Deuterium, NASA is also on YouTube, using Nickel and regular Hydrogen, claiming excess heat, and have are working on a spaceplane that would be so powered. Their slide shows, given at various NASA facilities, mention aircraft with "unlimited hover", and space planes that need only 20,000 pounds of fuel to attain low earth orbit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.106.183 ( talk) 05:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC) |
WP:NOTFORUM. Talk pages are for proposing specific changes, not for
soapboxing.
|
---|
I want to comment further on what I said above, that articles can become biased through bias in how the rules are interpreted. This is a problem of law generally: Parliament or the equivalent makes the law, and it is then for judges to put law into action. They have to try and determine the intent of those who made the law, and sometimes there is a general view that a judge's interpretation is erroneous. Over time the question of what the law should mean gets determined. This is not a mindless process, and intelligence is required. Sometimes judges have an agenda or point of view; this is sometimes apparent in rape cases, where on occasion judges interpret the law according their own PoV that certain forms of behaviour generally considered inappropriate are perfectly reasonable. I mention this only to make the point that in w'pedia similarly PoVs lead to editors applying the rules in ways that more detached people would consider perverse. End of story. -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 17:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC) |
From the previous section the appeal to content of the archives in present discussions comes into questioning by some editors. It is a rather general issue which could apply to any talk page, not just this one. What other users think about this use of the archives, when it is appropriate and when not to use archived content in present discussions?-- 5.15.178.192 ( talk) 08:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.-- 5.15.179.182 ( talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It has been suggested above (by user Brian Josephson) that a rewritten version of the entire article (with details on both sides) is needed, not just patching it in some places. Perhaps this rewriting could be done on an auxiliary page of this talk page like Talk:Cold fusion/Rewritten version.-- 5.15.177.58 ( talk) 12:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
How can different hypothesized mechanisms of helium generations be discerned on from another? Is the helium generated by the fusion of deuterons or by other reaction? Or both by deuteron fusion and other reaction(s)?-- 5.15.206.234 ( talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
From the previous section the appeal to content of the archives in present discussions comes into questioning by some editors. It is a rather general issue which could apply to any talk page, not just this one. What other users think about this use of the archives, when it is appropriate and when not to use archived content in present discussions?-- 5.15.178.192 ( talk) 08:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.-- 5.15.179.182 ( talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It has been suggested above (by user Brian Josephson) that a rewritten version of the entire article (with details on both sides) is needed, not just patching it in some places. Perhaps this rewriting could be done on an auxiliary page of this talk page like Talk:Cold fusion/Rewritten version.-- 5.15.177.58 ( talk) 12:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
One of the critics (J Huizenga) of cold fusion said something about F&P missinterpreting Nernst equation. Some details should added concerning the kind of missinterpretation involved according to Huizenga's view.-- 5.15.200.238 ( talk) 18:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Huizenga seems to have used the mentioned equation to say that the fusion of the deuterons due to the lattice efect in metal hydrogen systems is improbable due to enormous pressure calculated by F&P.-- 5.15.178.93 ( talk) 21:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a claim present in the article (by G Taubes) that requires clarification: the excess heat in FP experiments could be attributed to difference in conductivities of ionic solution of lithium salts in heavy water vs water, the heavy water solutions having much lower conductivity and thus producing a higher ohmic heating.-- 5.15.62.129 ( talk) 10:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Another aspect which should be presented in article is the role of neutrons, as there are some claims that lacking background neutron cold fusion does not occur (experiments done with Kamiokande machine in an isolated cave at high depth).-- 5.15.206.146 ( talk) 08:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It would be useful to mention the Trapped neutron catalyzed fusion (by Kozima) in the subsection Proposed mechanisms.-- 5.15.205.255 ( talk) 15:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
This model assumes the existence of stable trapped neutrons in some solids connected to triggering of cold fusion.-- 5.15.37.249 ( talk) 20:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
What journals that publish articles in the field are reliable and what are not?-- 5.15.176.81 ( talk) 15:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I found the following articles that gave a favorable opinion of cold fusion:
What makes these articles somewhat credible is that they are from sources not specializing in unorthodox ideas like CF, so a major source of bias is removed. (It is not clear if any of these sources openly say that CF has been “proven” to work; I would have to check.) Should these sources be cited? If so, how would they be integrated into the article? The Wired article is a little questionable because the name Wired sounds cheesy; also, it is a hippie magazine, so it may have the bias of being oriented toward unorthodox ideas. The other sources seem more serious.-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 05:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
From the previous section the appeal to content of the archives in present discussions comes into questioning by some editors. It is a rather general issue which could apply to any talk page, not just this one. What other users think about this use of the archives, when it is appropriate and when not to use archived content in present discussions?-- 5.15.178.192 ( talk) 08:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.-- 5.15.179.182 ( talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It has been suggested above (by user Brian Josephson) that a rewritten version of the entire article (with details on both sides) is needed, not just patching it in some places. Perhaps this rewriting could be done on an auxiliary page of this talk page like Talk:Cold fusion/Rewritten version.-- 5.15.177.58 ( talk) 12:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
One of the critics (J Huizenga) of cold fusion said something about F&P missinterpreting Nernst equation. Some details should added concerning the kind of missinterpretation involved according to Huizenga's view.-- 5.15.200.238 ( talk) 18:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Huizenga seems to have used the mentioned equation to say that the fusion of the deuterons due to the lattice efect in metal hydrogen systems is improbable due to enormous pressure calculated by F&P.-- 5.15.178.93 ( talk) 21:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a claim present in the article (by G Taubes) that requires clarification: the excess heat in FP experiments could be attributed to difference in conductivities of ionic solution of lithium salts in heavy water vs water, the heavy water solutions having much lower conductivity and thus producing a higher ohmic heating.-- 5.15.62.129 ( talk) 10:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Another aspect which should be presented in article is the role of neutrons, as there are some claims that lacking background neutron cold fusion does not occur (experiments done with Kamiokande machine in an isolated cave at high depth).-- 5.15.206.146 ( talk) 08:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It would be useful to mention the Trapped neutron catalyzed fusion (by Kozima) in the subsection Proposed mechanisms.-- 5.15.205.255 ( talk) 15:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
This model assumes the existence of stable trapped neutrons in some solids connected to triggering of cold fusion.-- 5.15.37.249 ( talk) 20:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
What journals that publish articles in the field are reliable and what are not?-- 5.15.176.81 ( talk) 15:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I found the following articles that gave a favorable opinion of cold fusion:
What makes these articles somewhat credible is that they are from sources not specializing in unorthodox ideas like CF, so a major source of bias is removed. (It is not clear if any of these sources openly say that CF has been “proven” to work; I would have to check.) Should these sources be cited? If so, how would they be integrated into the article? The Wired article is a little questionable because the name Wired sounds cheesy; also, it is a hippie magazine, so it may have the bias of being oriented toward unorthodox ideas. The other sources seem more serious.-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 05:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
This edit cites this paper:
{{
cite web}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last=
(
help)I can't access the text. But I can see the list of references, and they are all unrelated to cold fusion? Does this paper even mention cold fusion in its text? Can we have a quote of the relevant sentence(s)? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 14:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
In the context of the reproducibility it is interesting to notice another domain with problems in this regard, but not so controversial, the field of bioelectromagnetic studies. This has had many failures to replicate the results as pointed out by the book Biological effects of electric and magnetic fields (vol I) edited by David O. C(arpenter?), Academic Press, 1994.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 10:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the ireproducibility of materials is a feature of complex systems through chaotic behaviour (as stated at least by Kozima).-- 5.15.53.183 ( talk) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
In Pd systems it is claimed by McKubre etal that Al and Si on the surface of Pd enhances reproducibility.-- 5.15.0.43 ( talk) 11:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I suggest inclusion in the article of the answer to next question (rephrased comment): Are there some experiments performed with alternating current in electrolytic enviroments?-- 5.15.207.101 ( talk) 12:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The topic of this subsection is the inclusion in the article of the answer to the question if there are any reported experiments in which the cold fusion phenomena occurs in systems containing only heavy water subjected to an alternating electric field through electrodes, considering that the Reported results section in the article begins with the enumeration of the constituents and conditions for experiments: metal/electrodes, deuterium/heavy water, type of system (gas contact, electroytic, etc) and excitation (fields, acustic waves etc)-- 5.15.177.181 ( talk) 20:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the work of Bockris and Sundaresan reports results of such kind with carbon electrodes in simple water.-- 5.15.53.183 ( talk) 18:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Clearly Taubes book has a biased attitude focused on the emotions of scientists he interviewed rather than on scientific aspects. Thus the reliability of this source should be reassesed.
It seems that Taubes and Huizenga are the pillars of the biased attitude on cold fusion present in the article-- 5.15.198.54 ( talk) 20:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Taubes accused Bockris of contaminating electrolysis cells with tritium, allegation disproved.-- 5.15.0.43 ( talk) 11:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Robert Duncan should be quoted in the article about the need to apply the scientific method to cold fusion. Or perhaps someone from the editors on this page would want to cast doubt on his reliability?-- 5.15.197.212 ( talk) 21:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
You asked me if I know who Robert Duncan©™® is (honestly, a mental image of a dog with its tail wagging came to mind with that). I am exceedingly pleased to respond, “F--k no, and proud of it.” So I just now googled his name and stopped at the first site that wasn’t Wikipedia (*queue “eye rolling” clip from B‑roll*) or (literally) Cold Fusion Now-dot-com, and looked at this blog about the fellow, where there were individuals who seemed to be less-than-impressed with His Highness Of Cold Fusion. As for what “LENR” means, it’s just one of the many—as Sarah Palin might say—*sciency*-sounding pseudonyms to avoid saying “cold fusion”; an effort to put lipstick on a pig and pass it off as a prom date.
Collapse per
WP:NOTFORUM - no edit proposed. This is not the place for a discussion about editors, or a forum for general discussion about cold fusion.
|
---|
subsection with another quote hastily removed by IRWolfie.-- 5.15.198.117 ( talk) 08:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
What a hasty reaction from a user! I was about to give details about the relevance of the second quote when a user hastily intervened and caused an edit conflict. So I will restore the second quote with details.-- 5.15.194.94 ( talk) 07:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
|
I have found quotes in the archive of this page which indicate that some wikieditors are not very aware of the subtleties of the scientific method. The entire subsection has been hastily removed by another user who has interpreted the use of that quotes as a personal attack.
The removed quote contains assertions about the correctness of theories and the acceptance by scientists. These aspects are contrary to the scientific method because their insist to much on present models and assumptions on (thermo)nuclear fusion and the so-called scientific consensus and thus denying the validity of the cold fusion experiments due to contradiction to current models. Current models and assumptions have not an absolute status which would allow the categorical conclusion that cold fusion results are necessarily an error. The current models and assumptions are perfectible. Using them as premises to categorically deny the reality of cold fusion is a great reasoning error and thus a serious deviation from the scientific method.
I^ll restore the quotes later when I^ll find time.-- 5.15.195.89 ( talk) 08:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The lecture Pathological Disbelief could be cited regarding the deviation from the scientific method in the case of cold fusion in comparison to other cases.-- 5.15.196.180 ( talk) 21:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
For instance, in the case of the origin of meteorites there has been little scientific base to object to the non-terrestrial origin of meteorites as pointed out by Max von Laue in his History of Physics (Geschichte der Physik, 1958). Some newtonian disciples considered that meteorites could not have come from outer space because this was seen a disturbance of cosmic harmony.-- 5.15.198.26 ( talk) 08:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The concept of cosmic harmony is an influence from Plato, as pointed out by John Desmond Bernal in his Science in History.-- 5.15.7.76 ( talk) 19:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
What is the scientific base of the reasoning that cold fusion must have the exact mechanism as conventional fusion in free space, otherwise its existence is denied? (the answer should be specified in the article)-- 86.125.163.60 ( talk) 21:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
In dilute solutions, the Nernst equation can be expressed directly in terms of concentrations (since activity coefficients are close to unity). But at higher concentrations, the true activities of the ions must be used. This complicates the use of the Nernst equation, since estimation of non-ideal activities of ions generally requires experimental measurements. The Nernst equation also only applies when there is no net current flow through the electrode. The activity of ions at the electrode surface changes when there is current flow, and there are additional overpotential and resistive loss terms which contribute to the measured potential.
I have noticed this page and the controversial aspects (especially those concerning Nernst equation) presented here. It seems there have been many omissions of important aspects in the history of this topic. Nernst equation is one of them. It has stated by its author originally appealing only to concentrations (thus considering tacitly ideal solutions) and at zero net current (thermodynamic equilibrium of electric and osmotic force).
Its original formulation appealed to a doubtful concept - the dissolution tension of metals - which had implausibly high values and has been dropped being replaced with the notion of activity due to non-ideal solutions (ionic solutions being non-ideal from start). The nature of ionic solutions has been pointed out firstly by Arhenius and then by Max Born with his simplified version of the heat of solution of solid salts, thus underlying the presence of mobile ions.-
The relevance of the equation to the present topic seems to be in whether or not some factors could trigger the fusion of deuterons in solid lattice of transition metal hydrides, perhaps differently from the mechanisms in conventional fusion.-- 188.27.144.144( talk) 12:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
As some editors complained about the lack of a specific edit proposal, I suggest that the shortcomings of the DOE report should specified in the article (of course using sources in order that some editor not say that could be OR).-- 5.15.209.114 ( talk) 08:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
While we're on the subject of the DoE report, its 2004 report included the following text (page 4):
Evaluations by the reviewers ranged from: 1) evidence for excess power is compelling, to 2) there is no convincing evidence that excess power is produced when integrated over the life of an experiment. The reviewers were split approximately evenly on this topic. Those reviewers who accepted the production of excess power typically suggest that the effect seen often, and under some understood conditions, is compelling.
In conformity with requests by some editors, I should like to ask, before including it in the article, whether there is a legitimate reason why this quote should not be included? -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 11:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand your logic, I'm afraid. It would be different if that short quote was similar to something already there, but that isn't the case -- in fact what little reference there is to the 2004 review is a little misleading (see below). And one might characterise my suggestion by saying that the sentences quoted fill a gap in what is there at present.
If you think too much is there re DoE reviews, the answer would seem to be to remove some of the material regarding the 1989 review, which was less searching than the 2004 review and therefore deserving of less weight. And it isn't exactly right to say 'reviewers found that cold fusion evidence was still not convincing 15 years later'; rather it was some reviewers (roughly a half) that was not convinced by the excess heat measurement. Would you like me to try and improve the article in that respect? -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 22:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
It is stated in the article that DOE considers the theoretical proposals to be the weakest part of CF reports. What is the scientific base of such assertions about theoretical models? The answer is important to be specified in the article.-- 5.15.62.129 ( talk) 11:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
From the previous section the appeal to content of the archives in present discussions comes into questioning by some editors. It is a rather general issue which could apply to any talk page, not just this one. What other users think about this use of the archives, when it is appropriate and when not to use archived content in present discussions?-- 5.15.178.192 ( talk) 08:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.-- 5.15.179.182 ( talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
What journals that publish articles in the field are reliable and what are not?-- 5.15.176.81 ( talk) 15:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I found the following articles that gave a favorable opinion of cold fusion:
What makes these articles somewhat credible is that they are from sources not specializing in unorthodox ideas like CF, so a major source of bias is removed. (It is not clear if any of these sources openly say that CF has been “proven” to work; I would have to check.) Should these sources be cited? If so, how would they be integrated into the article? The Wired article is a little questionable because the name Wired sounds cheesy; also, it is a hippie magazine, so it may have the bias of being oriented toward unorthodox ideas. The other sources seem more serious.-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 05:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It should be specified what are the connections between the two types of fusion.-- 5.15.41.228 ( talk) 21:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
There no good reason to archive the talk page with time between archiving of 1 month for unreplied sections. The archiving settings could be changed.-- 5.15.41.17 ( talk) 20:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Who has made the setting of archiving this page of 1 month since the last unreplied comment in sections?-- 5.15.63.120 ( talk) 21:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
How can different hypothesized mechanisms of helium generations be discerned on from another? Is the helium generated by the fusion of deuterons or by other reaction? Or both by deuteron fusion and other reaction(s)?-- 5.15.206.234 ( talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Baym & Legett 1989, and Ichimaru 1989 mention some theoretical objections to helium generation by deuteron fusion.-- 5.15.41.17 ( talk) 20:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It has been discussed whether helium is generated by fusion of deuterons or by reaction of Li-6 with neutron.-- 5.15.63.120 ( talk) 21:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Several types of models, considering or avoiding the potential barrier to fusion of deuterons are reviewed by Chechin&Tsarev Int. J. Theor Phys. (1993)-- 5.15.41.228 ( talk) 21:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The models which avoid the barrier resort to hypotheses concerning forces that could facilitate the fusion of deuterons thus making the barrier concept unnecessary.-- 5.15.63.120 ( talk) 21:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
From the previous section the appeal to content of the archives in present discussions comes into questioning by some editors. It is a rather general issue which could apply to any talk page, not just this one. What other users think about this use of the archives, when it is appropriate and when not to use archived content in present discussions?-- 5.15.178.192 ( talk) 08:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.-- 5.15.179.182 ( talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It should be specified what are the connections between the two types of fusion.-- 5.15.41.228 ( talk) 21:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
There no good reason to archive the talk page with time between archiving of 1 month for unreplied sections. The archiving settings could be changed.-- 5.15.41.17 ( talk) 20:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Who has made the setting of archiving this page of 1 month since the last unreplied comment in sections?-- 5.15.63.120 ( talk) 21:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
How can different hypothesized mechanisms of helium generations be discerned on from another? Is the helium generated by the fusion of deuterons or by other reaction? Or both by deuteron fusion and other reaction(s)?-- 5.15.206.234 ( talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Baym & Legett 1989, and Ichimaru 1989 mention some theoretical objections to helium generation by deuteron fusion.-- 5.15.41.17 ( talk) 20:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It has been discussed whether helium is generated by fusion of deuterons or by reaction of Li-6 with neutron.-- 5.15.63.120 ( talk) 21:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.-- 5.15.179.182 ( talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
How can different hypothesized mechanisms of helium generations be discerned on from another? Is the helium generated by the fusion of deuterons or by other reaction? Or both by deuteron fusion and other reaction(s)?-- 5.15.206.234 ( talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Baym & Legett 1989, and Ichimaru 1989 mention some theoretical objections to helium generation by deuteron fusion.-- 5.15.41.17 ( talk) 20:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It has been discussed whether helium is generated by fusion of deuterons or by reaction of Li-6 with neutron.-- 5.15.63.120 ( talk) 21:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a claim present in the article (by G Taubes) that requires clarification: the excess heat in FP experiments could be attributed to difference in conductivities of ionic solution of lithium salts in heavy water vs water, the heavy water solutions having much lower conductivity and thus producing a higher ohmic heating.-- 5.15.62.129 ( talk) 10:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Taubes can be cited as according to Taubes....-- 5.15.50.78 ( talk) 21:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This edit cites this paper:
{{
cite web}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last=
(
help)I can't access the text. But I can see the list of references, and they are all unrelated to cold fusion? Does this paper even mention cold fusion in its text? Can we have a quote of the relevant sentence(s)? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 14:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
In the context of the reproducibility it is interesting to notice another domain with problems in this regard, but not so controversial, the field of bioelectromagnetic studies. This has had many failures to replicate the results as pointed out by the book Biological effects of electric and magnetic fields (vol I) edited by David O. C(arpenter?), Academic Press, 1994.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 10:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the ireproducibility of materials is a feature of complex systems through chaotic behaviour (as stated at least by Kozima).-- 5.15.53.183 ( talk) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
In Pd systems it is claimed by McKubre etal that Al and Si on the surface of Pd enhances reproducibility.-- 5.15.0.43 ( talk) 11:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Some metals can lower the reproducibility, like Zn or Cu.-- 5.15.50.78 ( talk) 21:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
One of the critics (J Huizenga) of cold fusion said something about F&P missinterpreting Nernst equation. Some details should added concerning the kind of missinterpretation involved according to Huizenga's view.-- 5.15.200.238 ( talk) 18:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Huizenga seems to have used the mentioned equation to say that the fusion of the deuterons due to the lattice efect in metal hydrogen systems is improbable due to enormous pressure calculated by F&P.-- 5.15.178.93 ( talk) 21:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The equation cannot be used to deny the fusion of the deuterons.-- 5.15.50.78 ( talk) 21:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Something should be inserted in article about the quality of experiments and experimental design in regards to reproducibility, like the following text:
After the announcement of the Cold Fusion by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, there has been great debate between the deniers and the believers of the science of cold fusion phenomena. The debate continues to this day after two decades since the announcement. In other sciences, this situation is rare typically due to the fact that experiments are either reproducible or not. In this particular situation, the poor reproducibility of the experiment has been a major issue. As a result, the truth about whether or not cold fusion is even possible has been questioned. The purpose of this paper is to clarify why this unique situation occurred. We divide the process of experiment into four phases to analyze why "poor reproducibility" occurred. (1)Setting up the hypothesis, (2) Planning of experimental design, (3) Implementation of the experiment and (4) Verification of experiment. We would like to discuss what the problems have been in each phase.We interviewed the scholars in the field of Cold Fusion and found that the following problems have occurred in the four phases. (1) Hypotheses: There have been a number of hypotheses. Therefore, it has been difficult to get specific, measurable feed back. What one believes theoretical plays outs quite differently in experimental form (2) Experimental design: Each experiment may appear to have been carried out under the same conditions. However, variations appeared in the experimental results. It is possible that there were unknown conditions in metal, gas, and other components. Such unknown conditions might have not been considered in the experimental design. (3) Implementation of the experiment: Preventing the dispersion of the gas such as nano-structure of the metal as well as the gas such as hydrogen is very difficult. Hence, it has been difficult to control the experiment perfectly. (4) Verification of experiment: There has been some uncertainty about the various hypothesis and experimental conditions. It is difficult to write specifically about all the experimental conditions in the papers. Therefore, reproducing the experiments have been difficult for other researchers. In this study, we focused on the quality of the "implementation of experiment". In particular, we analyzed the prototype of the venture companies outside of Japan. We looked at the photos and the data of the prototype. We also analyzed the structure of the prototype, material, gas, and the method of heat measurement from the photos. We came to the conclusion that the results and outputs that the company claims are quite different from what they appear to be. Moreover, the data and the information which contained a lot of noise were announced without peer-reviews. In conclusion, "the lack of clear hypothesis", "difficulty in controlling the experimental conditions" and "uncertainty of information" led to the current controversy of Cold Fusion. It is important to solve these problems in order for the society of Cold Fusion to be in the main stream of the scientific society.
by E. Igari, T. Mizuno-- 5.15.41.17 ( talk) 21:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The influence of alloys electrodes can be tested.-- 5.15.50.78 ( talk) 21:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
It has been suggested above (by user Brian Josephson) that a rewritten version of the entire article (with details on both sides) is needed, not just patching it in some places. Perhaps this rewriting could be done on an auxiliary page of this talk page like Talk:Cold fusion/Rewritten version.-- 5.15.177.58 ( talk) 12:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Short of a complete rewrite, a lot of information is buried in the "history" section. Following the structure of Fusion power I think that a "Current Status" section is appropriate (of course, "current" will migrate to "history" on a timescale of maybe 5 years). A subsection of "current financing" could include the Kimmel/SKINR grant and the recent DOE funding proposal. Similarly, "current research/progress" could contain recent reports. Alanf777 ( talk) 01:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/rossi-roundup - how about adding informations from this site? -- 22merlin ( talk) 15:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Added an initial entry based on Forbes and DOE. Alanf777 ( talk) 00:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I have to say this addition still strikes me as problematic. It has an entire standalone subsection written in rather a newsy "announcement" fashion to itself, and a meaty paragraph in the lede - which all seems rather undue. More particularly though, the secondary source we use explicitly says its subject is not to be confused with "cold fusion" such as Pons-Fleischmann's efforts. Yet here we are adding it to an article on Wikipedia entitled "Cold fusion" the opening words of which are "This article is about the Fleischmann–Pons claims of nuclear fusion at room temperature". So something's wrong somewhere isn't it? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 20:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.-- 5.15.179.182 ( talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
How can different hypothesized mechanisms of helium generations be discerned on from another? Is the helium generated by the fusion of deuterons or by other reaction? Or both by deuteron fusion and other reaction(s)?-- 5.15.206.234 ( talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Baym & Legett 1989, and Ichimaru 1989 mention some theoretical objections to helium generation by deuteron fusion.-- 5.15.41.17 ( talk) 20:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It has been discussed whether helium is generated by fusion of deuterons or by reaction of Li-6 with neutron.-- 5.15.63.120 ( talk) 21:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a claim present in the article (by G Taubes) that requires clarification: the excess heat in FP experiments could be attributed to difference in conductivities of ionic solution of lithium salts in heavy water vs water, the heavy water solutions having much lower conductivity and thus producing a higher ohmic heating.-- 5.15.62.129 ( talk) 10:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Taubes can be cited as according to Taubes....-- 5.15.50.78 ( talk) 21:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This edit cites this paper:
{{
cite web}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last=
(
help)I can't access the text. But I can see the list of references, and they are all unrelated to cold fusion? Does this paper even mention cold fusion in its text? Can we have a quote of the relevant sentence(s)? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 14:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
In the context of the reproducibility it is interesting to notice another domain with problems in this regard, but not so controversial, the field of bioelectromagnetic studies. This has had many failures to replicate the results as pointed out by the book Biological effects of electric and magnetic fields (vol I) edited by David O. C(arpenter?), Academic Press, 1994.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 10:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the ireproducibility of materials is a feature of complex systems through chaotic behaviour (as stated at least by Kozima).-- 5.15.53.183 ( talk) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
In Pd systems it is claimed by McKubre etal that Al and Si on the surface of Pd enhances reproducibility.-- 5.15.0.43 ( talk) 11:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Some metals can lower the reproducibility, like Zn or Cu.-- 5.15.50.78 ( talk) 21:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
One of the critics (J Huizenga) of cold fusion said something about F&P missinterpreting Nernst equation. Some details should added concerning the kind of missinterpretation involved according to Huizenga's view.-- 5.15.200.238 ( talk) 18:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Huizenga seems to have used the mentioned equation to say that the fusion of the deuterons due to the lattice efect in metal hydrogen systems is improbable due to enormous pressure calculated by F&P.-- 5.15.178.93 ( talk) 21:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The equation cannot be used to deny the fusion of the deuterons.-- 5.15.50.78 ( talk) 21:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Something should be inserted in article about the quality of experiments and experimental design in regards to reproducibility, like the following text:
After the announcement of the Cold Fusion by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, there has been great debate between the deniers and the believers of the science of cold fusion phenomena. The debate continues to this day after two decades since the announcement. In other sciences, this situation is rare typically due to the fact that experiments are either reproducible or not. In this particular situation, the poor reproducibility of the experiment has been a major issue. As a result, the truth about whether or not cold fusion is even possible has been questioned. The purpose of this paper is to clarify why this unique situation occurred. We divide the process of experiment into four phases to analyze why "poor reproducibility" occurred. (1)Setting up the hypothesis, (2) Planning of experimental design, (3) Implementation of the experiment and (4) Verification of experiment. We would like to discuss what the problems have been in each phase.We interviewed the scholars in the field of Cold Fusion and found that the following problems have occurred in the four phases. (1) Hypotheses: There have been a number of hypotheses. Therefore, it has been difficult to get specific, measurable feed back. What one believes theoretical plays outs quite differently in experimental form (2) Experimental design: Each experiment may appear to have been carried out under the same conditions. However, variations appeared in the experimental results. It is possible that there were unknown conditions in metal, gas, and other components. Such unknown conditions might have not been considered in the experimental design. (3) Implementation of the experiment: Preventing the dispersion of the gas such as nano-structure of the metal as well as the gas such as hydrogen is very difficult. Hence, it has been difficult to control the experiment perfectly. (4) Verification of experiment: There has been some uncertainty about the various hypothesis and experimental conditions. It is difficult to write specifically about all the experimental conditions in the papers. Therefore, reproducing the experiments have been difficult for other researchers. In this study, we focused on the quality of the "implementation of experiment". In particular, we analyzed the prototype of the venture companies outside of Japan. We looked at the photos and the data of the prototype. We also analyzed the structure of the prototype, material, gas, and the method of heat measurement from the photos. We came to the conclusion that the results and outputs that the company claims are quite different from what they appear to be. Moreover, the data and the information which contained a lot of noise were announced without peer-reviews. In conclusion, "the lack of clear hypothesis", "difficulty in controlling the experimental conditions" and "uncertainty of information" led to the current controversy of Cold Fusion. It is important to solve these problems in order for the society of Cold Fusion to be in the main stream of the scientific society.
by E. Igari, T. Mizuno-- 5.15.41.17 ( talk) 21:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The influence of alloys electrodes can be tested.-- 5.15.50.78 ( talk) 21:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
It has been suggested above (by user Brian Josephson) that a rewritten version of the entire article (with details on both sides) is needed, not just patching it in some places. Perhaps this rewriting could be done on an auxiliary page of this talk page like Talk:Cold fusion/Rewritten version.-- 5.15.177.58 ( talk) 12:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Short of a complete rewrite, a lot of information is buried in the "history" section. Following the structure of Fusion power I think that a "Current Status" section is appropriate (of course, "current" will migrate to "history" on a timescale of maybe 5 years). A subsection of "current financing" could include the Kimmel/SKINR grant and the recent DOE funding proposal. Similarly, "current research/progress" could contain recent reports. Alanf777 ( talk) 01:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/rossi-roundup - how about adding informations from this site? -- 22merlin ( talk) 15:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Added an initial entry based on Forbes and DOE. Alanf777 ( talk) 00:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I have to say this addition still strikes me as problematic. It has an entire standalone subsection written in rather a newsy "announcement" fashion to itself, and a meaty paragraph in the lede - which all seems rather undue. More particularly though, the secondary source we use explicitly says its subject is not to be confused with "cold fusion" such as Pons-Fleischmann's efforts. Yet here we are adding it to an article on Wikipedia entitled "Cold fusion" the opening words of which are "This article is about the Fleischmann–Pons claims of nuclear fusion at room temperature". So something's wrong somewhere isn't it? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 20:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/rossi-roundup - how about adding informations from this site? -- 22merlin ( talk) 15:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 |
"Google+ Conversation with Al Gore about Combating Climate Change" (Published 11 Jun 2013): [1] Silent Key ( talk) 10:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Relevant question is at 18 mins 53 sec. Silent Key ( talk) 11:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The production isn't about low energy nuclear reactions in specfic. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 16:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
This text was added to the article:
provided the conditions to generate binary star Trojan wave packets from its nuclei. [2] This however to achieve the confinement and the fusion rate equivalent to that of muonic catalysis would require that they would move on circles in binary star configuration with cyclotron frequency and the speed of light in magnetic field of the order od 106 Tesla. Since the cyclotron orbit must be so tight and the mass ratio between the electron and the muon is slightly above the half of the fine structure constant this cyclotron frequency corresponds to the frequency of the gamma radiation slightly below the necessary to cause the electron-positron pair production. This is 0.1% of that what is inside the neutron stars magnetars and 10 000 times more then those in Tokamak which does not seem to be possible. The current experiments with exploding electromagnets can barely provide 1000 T for milliseconds. Pairing of this kind would require also highly improbable counter- channeling with simultaneous turn-on of the magnetic field during the close approach event since the generation of such probability focused states is a non-trivial problem of quantum control itself. The channeling nuclei would also have to have subluminal speeds and therefore relativistic energies and the fusion would have to occur inside the unit cell of Palladium. Even if the need of magnetic field could be weaken to the laboratory values or even removed and the compression and fusion occurred in Langmuir configurations consisting of one negative ion from the Palladium cell and two nuclei of Deuterium the rotation frequency of the pair to provide sufficient compression should be of the order of gamma radiation and the velocity also near the speed of light i.e. with the kinetic energy sufficient to cause the fusion on the direct scattering. The rate enhancement would be only due to prolong exposure to each other. No energy pumping during the electrolysis appears to provide such activation energy except the accelerator beam injection of at least 4 keV ions readily achievable in TV-like Farnsworth–Hirsch fusor. Since the negative ion so point-like is not really possible if the nuclei were squeezed by the circularly polarized electromagnetic field this field strength should be as giant as on the muonic hydrogen Bohr orbit which is about 2x1016 V/m but this is so strong that can accelerate the ion to 4 keV at the same Bohr radius distance. The three-body mechanism mentioned here assuming that first someone would somehow overcome the problem of no-go values of the parameters implied by the fusion conditions would however explain very low reproducibility of the experiment without the prior knowledge of the theory since the fussing three body configurations in magnetic and electric fields consisting of two ions of Deuterium and one crystal lattice ion of Palladium exist always within very complicates stability (and therefore fusion) diagrams that depend on the frequencies and strengths of the fields that could be generated by the build-up charges and currents inside the solid lattice [3] and by the applied voltage potential. Those could also depend on the level of Palladium doping and the electrode geometry.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |separator=
ignored (
help)
This looks like a unpublished synthesis or sources that are not related to each other, and I see a lot unsourced conclusions and connexions. Can someone confirm if this is original research? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 13:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
The section Proposed mechanisms should contain proposed mechanisms, foremost a few fusion theories, and the Widom-Larsen transmutation theory favoured by NASA. Then some of the most common objections. The article topic requires it. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 13:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe this article is a model for an extension of "Proposed mechanisms" ... which, for Cold Fusion, seems to be frozen at about 2004 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_temperature_superconductivity#Possible_mechanism -- giving a fairly clear review of another case where the effect is established, but there is no single agreed theory: There have been two representative theories for HTS ... (And I won't even suggest looking at theories of big-bang inflation, where there's been a paper a day for 20 years and still no agreement.) Alanf777 ( talk) 22:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Any reason why I should not be allowed to edit the article? 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 09:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The article should include aspects concerning qualitative reproducibility as is the case for nuclear phenomena like the distribution of atomic numbers of nuclear fission which is qualitative and not insist that the quantitative is the only acceptable reproducibility.
It seems that people who post here keep insisting tacitly that reproducibility is only quantitative ignoring known facts and by this deviating from the scientific method which they claim to apply especially to this article.-- 5.15.205.173 ( talk) 15:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
What about the quote (which seems that someone rather impolitely considered to be off-topic) from Brian Josephson explaining the situation of the reproducibility expectations, could it cited? Or is it also repugnant to some posting comments on ground of apparent lack of acceptance? I will restore the visibility of Brian Josephson's comment because there are no good reasons to be included in a collapsable box.-- 5.15.210.25 ( talk) 20:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Talk pages are not make general complaints or
WP:RGW.
|
---|
visibility of Brian's reply restored.-- 5.15.210.25 ( talk) 20:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC) |
I consider that the quote mentioned above is reliable and must included in the article. Any one wishing to disagree?-- 5.15.205.101 ( talk) 19:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to make editors aware that there is a discussion on the same topic at Talk:Reproducibility. This one is linked from there, but not vice versa (thus why I'm leaving this comment). Arc de Ciel ( talk) 10:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
DV has reverted an improvement I made to the sentence Since cold fusion articles are rarely published in peer reviewed scientific journals, the results do not receive as much scrutiny as more mainstream topics. It seems I now have to waste my valuable time explaining to even those of the most limited intellectual ability the reasoning behind this change.
It may be that CF articles are rarely published in peer reviewed journals (though not as rarely as one might think, as perusal of the LENR library will show). The fact that quite a number of papers on the subject do receive, and pass, scrutiny shows that some such research at least does stand up. It is therefore clearer to use the 'most' rather than the rather woolly original wording. The point basically is that a large amount of mediocre research can't cancel out the conclusions of high quality research -- in science one does not decide truth by putting good and poor quality research in one pot and doing some kind of averaging process. Lay readers can't be expected to figure this out and the wording should be designed not to mislead them. [subversive thought: do some people revert purely for the sake of reverting, rather than on the basis of careful thought? I'd love to know the motives.]-- Brian Josephson ( talk) 21:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand sources need to be about the topic in specific. I wonder where in the text do we need: Phillip Ball "Life's matrix: a biography of water"? The book [6] doesn't appear to be about cold fusion:
The book is from 2001 and has a few pages with an interesting rundown of the cold fusion things happening at the time. It is not a book about the article topic. It shouldn't be here.
The American Scientist "Case Studies in Pathological Science: How the Loss of Objectivity Led to False Conclusions in Studies of Polywater, Infinite Dilution and Cold Fusion" from 1992, is not about cold fusion either.
I note: The association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.
(part of the comment moved to a separate section Enric Naval ( talk) 09:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC))
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 05:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I dont see what it is doing here.
Why is this old book advertised on this page?
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 17:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I've added a section on last week's live webcast of Defkalion's Hyperion. I'm not sure the precise details of power, temperature, duration etc. so if anyone would like to plough through the hours of webcast to add the details to the page please feel free to do so! -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 16:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Let's be clear about this. Are you suggesting that the events transmitted by livestream didn't actually happen? How are you suggesting the movie was generated then, from a recording? If you think that, then how do you account for the fact that Mats Lewan, an accredited technology writer, said he was there and that he saw the demo portrayed in the video? Was he making that up?
If you aren't suggesting that (and that would be an extraordinary hypothesis indeed), and agree that the transmission (now archived and available on the same web page) shows an actual demonstration, then I agree that 'it can only be used for what it showed'. Yes indeed! And what it showed was, prima facie, a proof that the device was generating excess heat as claimed. Livestream is a reliable source because it transmits in real time, with no opportunity for fakery by editing. That is exactly why I consider the link should be given. I have no objection to people adding provisos, but the factual account of what happened, verifiable by viewing the video, which could not have been subject to editing as livestream transmit it and archive it as it happened live, should be restored. Saying livestream is not a reliable source (they would not be pleased at the suggestion that have doctored the video) is plain twaddle.
And as regards conclusions, the figures I quoted can be checked by viewing the video (which I bet none of the critics have done). I agree that conclusions need a reliable source, but the description I gave is precisely what you see in the video, with no interpretation added (but you can add a few 'apparently's if you wish, I have no objection to that).
Let me add one final point. A video on youtube would, I agree, prove little, as it can be doctored. Livestream offers no such opportunities to change content.-- Brian Josephson ( talk) 18:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
To have this misconceived, knee-jerk criticism, not based on proper scholarship, in no way surprises me. Unbalanced criticism is far too common with articles such as these. You will see, if you go far enough back in time, that I never proposed a youtube video as a reliable source. The video I had proposed for the article was a live webcast, archived in its original form by a reputable company. Mats Lewan was present during the webcast and I think we can take it that the video showed an event that actually happened or he would have said something about it, and that the meter readings seen in the webcast were the actual meter readings. Various tests were done to check that everything was in order but no doubt you will say that Defkalion found a way to fake everything. They did invite a number of people to be present but unfortunately Lewan was the only person who accepted which I suppose would have made faking easier -- if you subscribe to that hypothesis.
Perhaps you've been confused by the fact that I have provided a youtube video link on this talk page to assist in making a point. The video concerned is a clip from the original source, and I used a link to the that clip here because youtube provide a straightforward way to link to a specific point in a video, which as far as I am aware cannot be done with the original source. Ideally I would have inserted a still from the original video but I am told that this cannot be done in a talk page, which seems illogical as I would have been allowed to use it in the article itself. -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 08:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Let's see now. Suppose there's a football team X, which has a w'pedia article that among other things lists their successes in the World Cup, including the scores. A supporter watches the latest final on TV, which they win again. Is it in order for the supporter to add the success and final score to the list in the w'pedia article, based on what he has seen on the TV? Or is that OR?
Let me quote here "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source". In what way is Livestream not a reliable transmitter of live events? And if the defence of your position is that the events described (the Defkalion damo) never happened, where is your proof of that a priori implausible proposition? -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 07:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
-- Brian Josephson ( talk) 21:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I just want to pass on a view from an expert that some of the above discussion constitutes trolling. For example he states of one of the items (by DV):
"This was trolling. [The comment concerned] is off-the-wall, based on nothing other than prejudice and his own opinion, even worse than original research, it's a POV."
-- Brian Josephson ( talk) 09:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
(moved from section "some unnecessary things" Enric Naval ( talk) 09:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC))
Then:
* {{cite journal |ref=harv |separator=, | editor-last=Saeta | editor-first=Peter N. | title=What is the current scientific thinking on cold fusion? Is there any possible validity to this phenomenon? | periodical=Scientific American | pages=1–6 | date=October 21, 1999 | series=Ask the Experts | url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-scien | accessdate = 2008-12-17 | postscript = – introduction to contributions from: }} ** {{cite journal |ref=harv |separator=, | last=Schaffer | first=Michael J. | title=Historical overview, assessment | work={{harvnb | Saeta | 1999}} | pages=1–3 | date=October 21, 1999 | url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-scien }} ** {{cite journal |ref=harv |separator=, | last=Morrison | first=Douglas R.O. | title=Assessment | work={{harvnb | Saeta | 1999}} | pages=3–5 | date=October 21, 1999 | url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-scien&page=3 }} ** {{cite journal |ref=harv |separator=, | last=Heeter | first=Robert F. | title=Response | work={{harvnb | Saeta | 1999}} | pages=5–6 | date=October 21, 1999 | url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-current-scien&page=5 }}
The output of this stuff here looks very pretty. It is just that this article doesn't have the space for it and that it doesn't do anything useful. It is hard enough for the reader to navigate the wall of links without the duplicates.
A single link to the article would be a better approach. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 05:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
:* {{harvnb | Saeta | 1999 }} :* {{harvnb | Saeta | 1999 |loc= pages 1-3; "Historical overview, assessment"; Schaffer, Michael J.}} :* {{harvnb | Saeta | 1999 |loc= pages 3-5; "Assessment"; Morrison, Douglas R.O. }} :* {{harvnb | Saeta | 1999 |loc= pages 5-6; "Response"; Heeter, Robert F.}}
no edit proposed
WP:NOTFORUM. The patent office do not verify whether something works or not (they have allowed perpetual motion machine patents in the past until quite recently).
|
---|
On April 16 of 2013 the U.S. Navy was granted a patent on a process very similar to the 1989 work by P&F. The granted patent is on the US govt patent website. The Navy SPAWAR presentation at U of Missouri is easily available on YouTube, it's over an hour long. They document tritium, transmutation of one metal to several others, gamma rays, etc. They are using Palladium and Deuterium, NASA is also on YouTube, using Nickel and regular Hydrogen, claiming excess heat, and have are working on a spaceplane that would be so powered. Their slide shows, given at various NASA facilities, mention aircraft with "unlimited hover", and space planes that need only 20,000 pounds of fuel to attain low earth orbit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.106.183 ( talk) 05:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC) |
WP:NOTFORUM. Talk pages are for proposing specific changes, not for
soapboxing.
|
---|
I want to comment further on what I said above, that articles can become biased through bias in how the rules are interpreted. This is a problem of law generally: Parliament or the equivalent makes the law, and it is then for judges to put law into action. They have to try and determine the intent of those who made the law, and sometimes there is a general view that a judge's interpretation is erroneous. Over time the question of what the law should mean gets determined. This is not a mindless process, and intelligence is required. Sometimes judges have an agenda or point of view; this is sometimes apparent in rape cases, where on occasion judges interpret the law according their own PoV that certain forms of behaviour generally considered inappropriate are perfectly reasonable. I mention this only to make the point that in w'pedia similarly PoVs lead to editors applying the rules in ways that more detached people would consider perverse. End of story. -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 17:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC) |
From the previous section the appeal to content of the archives in present discussions comes into questioning by some editors. It is a rather general issue which could apply to any talk page, not just this one. What other users think about this use of the archives, when it is appropriate and when not to use archived content in present discussions?-- 5.15.178.192 ( talk) 08:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.-- 5.15.179.182 ( talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It has been suggested above (by user Brian Josephson) that a rewritten version of the entire article (with details on both sides) is needed, not just patching it in some places. Perhaps this rewriting could be done on an auxiliary page of this talk page like Talk:Cold fusion/Rewritten version.-- 5.15.177.58 ( talk) 12:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
How can different hypothesized mechanisms of helium generations be discerned on from another? Is the helium generated by the fusion of deuterons or by other reaction? Or both by deuteron fusion and other reaction(s)?-- 5.15.206.234 ( talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
From the previous section the appeal to content of the archives in present discussions comes into questioning by some editors. It is a rather general issue which could apply to any talk page, not just this one. What other users think about this use of the archives, when it is appropriate and when not to use archived content in present discussions?-- 5.15.178.192 ( talk) 08:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.-- 5.15.179.182 ( talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It has been suggested above (by user Brian Josephson) that a rewritten version of the entire article (with details on both sides) is needed, not just patching it in some places. Perhaps this rewriting could be done on an auxiliary page of this talk page like Talk:Cold fusion/Rewritten version.-- 5.15.177.58 ( talk) 12:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
One of the critics (J Huizenga) of cold fusion said something about F&P missinterpreting Nernst equation. Some details should added concerning the kind of missinterpretation involved according to Huizenga's view.-- 5.15.200.238 ( talk) 18:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Huizenga seems to have used the mentioned equation to say that the fusion of the deuterons due to the lattice efect in metal hydrogen systems is improbable due to enormous pressure calculated by F&P.-- 5.15.178.93 ( talk) 21:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a claim present in the article (by G Taubes) that requires clarification: the excess heat in FP experiments could be attributed to difference in conductivities of ionic solution of lithium salts in heavy water vs water, the heavy water solutions having much lower conductivity and thus producing a higher ohmic heating.-- 5.15.62.129 ( talk) 10:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Another aspect which should be presented in article is the role of neutrons, as there are some claims that lacking background neutron cold fusion does not occur (experiments done with Kamiokande machine in an isolated cave at high depth).-- 5.15.206.146 ( talk) 08:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It would be useful to mention the Trapped neutron catalyzed fusion (by Kozima) in the subsection Proposed mechanisms.-- 5.15.205.255 ( talk) 15:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
This model assumes the existence of stable trapped neutrons in some solids connected to triggering of cold fusion.-- 5.15.37.249 ( talk) 20:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
What journals that publish articles in the field are reliable and what are not?-- 5.15.176.81 ( talk) 15:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I found the following articles that gave a favorable opinion of cold fusion:
What makes these articles somewhat credible is that they are from sources not specializing in unorthodox ideas like CF, so a major source of bias is removed. (It is not clear if any of these sources openly say that CF has been “proven” to work; I would have to check.) Should these sources be cited? If so, how would they be integrated into the article? The Wired article is a little questionable because the name Wired sounds cheesy; also, it is a hippie magazine, so it may have the bias of being oriented toward unorthodox ideas. The other sources seem more serious.-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 05:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
From the previous section the appeal to content of the archives in present discussions comes into questioning by some editors. It is a rather general issue which could apply to any talk page, not just this one. What other users think about this use of the archives, when it is appropriate and when not to use archived content in present discussions?-- 5.15.178.192 ( talk) 08:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.-- 5.15.179.182 ( talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It has been suggested above (by user Brian Josephson) that a rewritten version of the entire article (with details on both sides) is needed, not just patching it in some places. Perhaps this rewriting could be done on an auxiliary page of this talk page like Talk:Cold fusion/Rewritten version.-- 5.15.177.58 ( talk) 12:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
One of the critics (J Huizenga) of cold fusion said something about F&P missinterpreting Nernst equation. Some details should added concerning the kind of missinterpretation involved according to Huizenga's view.-- 5.15.200.238 ( talk) 18:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Huizenga seems to have used the mentioned equation to say that the fusion of the deuterons due to the lattice efect in metal hydrogen systems is improbable due to enormous pressure calculated by F&P.-- 5.15.178.93 ( talk) 21:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a claim present in the article (by G Taubes) that requires clarification: the excess heat in FP experiments could be attributed to difference in conductivities of ionic solution of lithium salts in heavy water vs water, the heavy water solutions having much lower conductivity and thus producing a higher ohmic heating.-- 5.15.62.129 ( talk) 10:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Another aspect which should be presented in article is the role of neutrons, as there are some claims that lacking background neutron cold fusion does not occur (experiments done with Kamiokande machine in an isolated cave at high depth).-- 5.15.206.146 ( talk) 08:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It would be useful to mention the Trapped neutron catalyzed fusion (by Kozima) in the subsection Proposed mechanisms.-- 5.15.205.255 ( talk) 15:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
This model assumes the existence of stable trapped neutrons in some solids connected to triggering of cold fusion.-- 5.15.37.249 ( talk) 20:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
What journals that publish articles in the field are reliable and what are not?-- 5.15.176.81 ( talk) 15:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I found the following articles that gave a favorable opinion of cold fusion:
What makes these articles somewhat credible is that they are from sources not specializing in unorthodox ideas like CF, so a major source of bias is removed. (It is not clear if any of these sources openly say that CF has been “proven” to work; I would have to check.) Should these sources be cited? If so, how would they be integrated into the article? The Wired article is a little questionable because the name Wired sounds cheesy; also, it is a hippie magazine, so it may have the bias of being oriented toward unorthodox ideas. The other sources seem more serious.-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 05:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
This edit cites this paper:
{{
cite web}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last=
(
help)I can't access the text. But I can see the list of references, and they are all unrelated to cold fusion? Does this paper even mention cold fusion in its text? Can we have a quote of the relevant sentence(s)? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 14:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
In the context of the reproducibility it is interesting to notice another domain with problems in this regard, but not so controversial, the field of bioelectromagnetic studies. This has had many failures to replicate the results as pointed out by the book Biological effects of electric and magnetic fields (vol I) edited by David O. C(arpenter?), Academic Press, 1994.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 10:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the ireproducibility of materials is a feature of complex systems through chaotic behaviour (as stated at least by Kozima).-- 5.15.53.183 ( talk) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
In Pd systems it is claimed by McKubre etal that Al and Si on the surface of Pd enhances reproducibility.-- 5.15.0.43 ( talk) 11:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I suggest inclusion in the article of the answer to next question (rephrased comment): Are there some experiments performed with alternating current in electrolytic enviroments?-- 5.15.207.101 ( talk) 12:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The topic of this subsection is the inclusion in the article of the answer to the question if there are any reported experiments in which the cold fusion phenomena occurs in systems containing only heavy water subjected to an alternating electric field through electrodes, considering that the Reported results section in the article begins with the enumeration of the constituents and conditions for experiments: metal/electrodes, deuterium/heavy water, type of system (gas contact, electroytic, etc) and excitation (fields, acustic waves etc)-- 5.15.177.181 ( talk) 20:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the work of Bockris and Sundaresan reports results of such kind with carbon electrodes in simple water.-- 5.15.53.183 ( talk) 18:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Clearly Taubes book has a biased attitude focused on the emotions of scientists he interviewed rather than on scientific aspects. Thus the reliability of this source should be reassesed.
It seems that Taubes and Huizenga are the pillars of the biased attitude on cold fusion present in the article-- 5.15.198.54 ( talk) 20:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Taubes accused Bockris of contaminating electrolysis cells with tritium, allegation disproved.-- 5.15.0.43 ( talk) 11:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Robert Duncan should be quoted in the article about the need to apply the scientific method to cold fusion. Or perhaps someone from the editors on this page would want to cast doubt on his reliability?-- 5.15.197.212 ( talk) 21:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
You asked me if I know who Robert Duncan©™® is (honestly, a mental image of a dog with its tail wagging came to mind with that). I am exceedingly pleased to respond, “F--k no, and proud of it.” So I just now googled his name and stopped at the first site that wasn’t Wikipedia (*queue “eye rolling” clip from B‑roll*) or (literally) Cold Fusion Now-dot-com, and looked at this blog about the fellow, where there were individuals who seemed to be less-than-impressed with His Highness Of Cold Fusion. As for what “LENR” means, it’s just one of the many—as Sarah Palin might say—*sciency*-sounding pseudonyms to avoid saying “cold fusion”; an effort to put lipstick on a pig and pass it off as a prom date.
Collapse per
WP:NOTFORUM - no edit proposed. This is not the place for a discussion about editors, or a forum for general discussion about cold fusion.
|
---|
subsection with another quote hastily removed by IRWolfie.-- 5.15.198.117 ( talk) 08:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
What a hasty reaction from a user! I was about to give details about the relevance of the second quote when a user hastily intervened and caused an edit conflict. So I will restore the second quote with details.-- 5.15.194.94 ( talk) 07:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
|
I have found quotes in the archive of this page which indicate that some wikieditors are not very aware of the subtleties of the scientific method. The entire subsection has been hastily removed by another user who has interpreted the use of that quotes as a personal attack.
The removed quote contains assertions about the correctness of theories and the acceptance by scientists. These aspects are contrary to the scientific method because their insist to much on present models and assumptions on (thermo)nuclear fusion and the so-called scientific consensus and thus denying the validity of the cold fusion experiments due to contradiction to current models. Current models and assumptions have not an absolute status which would allow the categorical conclusion that cold fusion results are necessarily an error. The current models and assumptions are perfectible. Using them as premises to categorically deny the reality of cold fusion is a great reasoning error and thus a serious deviation from the scientific method.
I^ll restore the quotes later when I^ll find time.-- 5.15.195.89 ( talk) 08:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The lecture Pathological Disbelief could be cited regarding the deviation from the scientific method in the case of cold fusion in comparison to other cases.-- 5.15.196.180 ( talk) 21:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
For instance, in the case of the origin of meteorites there has been little scientific base to object to the non-terrestrial origin of meteorites as pointed out by Max von Laue in his History of Physics (Geschichte der Physik, 1958). Some newtonian disciples considered that meteorites could not have come from outer space because this was seen a disturbance of cosmic harmony.-- 5.15.198.26 ( talk) 08:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The concept of cosmic harmony is an influence from Plato, as pointed out by John Desmond Bernal in his Science in History.-- 5.15.7.76 ( talk) 19:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
What is the scientific base of the reasoning that cold fusion must have the exact mechanism as conventional fusion in free space, otherwise its existence is denied? (the answer should be specified in the article)-- 86.125.163.60 ( talk) 21:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
In dilute solutions, the Nernst equation can be expressed directly in terms of concentrations (since activity coefficients are close to unity). But at higher concentrations, the true activities of the ions must be used. This complicates the use of the Nernst equation, since estimation of non-ideal activities of ions generally requires experimental measurements. The Nernst equation also only applies when there is no net current flow through the electrode. The activity of ions at the electrode surface changes when there is current flow, and there are additional overpotential and resistive loss terms which contribute to the measured potential.
I have noticed this page and the controversial aspects (especially those concerning Nernst equation) presented here. It seems there have been many omissions of important aspects in the history of this topic. Nernst equation is one of them. It has stated by its author originally appealing only to concentrations (thus considering tacitly ideal solutions) and at zero net current (thermodynamic equilibrium of electric and osmotic force).
Its original formulation appealed to a doubtful concept - the dissolution tension of metals - which had implausibly high values and has been dropped being replaced with the notion of activity due to non-ideal solutions (ionic solutions being non-ideal from start). The nature of ionic solutions has been pointed out firstly by Arhenius and then by Max Born with his simplified version of the heat of solution of solid salts, thus underlying the presence of mobile ions.-
The relevance of the equation to the present topic seems to be in whether or not some factors could trigger the fusion of deuterons in solid lattice of transition metal hydrides, perhaps differently from the mechanisms in conventional fusion.-- 188.27.144.144( talk) 12:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
As some editors complained about the lack of a specific edit proposal, I suggest that the shortcomings of the DOE report should specified in the article (of course using sources in order that some editor not say that could be OR).-- 5.15.209.114 ( talk) 08:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
While we're on the subject of the DoE report, its 2004 report included the following text (page 4):
Evaluations by the reviewers ranged from: 1) evidence for excess power is compelling, to 2) there is no convincing evidence that excess power is produced when integrated over the life of an experiment. The reviewers were split approximately evenly on this topic. Those reviewers who accepted the production of excess power typically suggest that the effect seen often, and under some understood conditions, is compelling.
In conformity with requests by some editors, I should like to ask, before including it in the article, whether there is a legitimate reason why this quote should not be included? -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 11:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand your logic, I'm afraid. It would be different if that short quote was similar to something already there, but that isn't the case -- in fact what little reference there is to the 2004 review is a little misleading (see below). And one might characterise my suggestion by saying that the sentences quoted fill a gap in what is there at present.
If you think too much is there re DoE reviews, the answer would seem to be to remove some of the material regarding the 1989 review, which was less searching than the 2004 review and therefore deserving of less weight. And it isn't exactly right to say 'reviewers found that cold fusion evidence was still not convincing 15 years later'; rather it was some reviewers (roughly a half) that was not convinced by the excess heat measurement. Would you like me to try and improve the article in that respect? -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 22:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
It is stated in the article that DOE considers the theoretical proposals to be the weakest part of CF reports. What is the scientific base of such assertions about theoretical models? The answer is important to be specified in the article.-- 5.15.62.129 ( talk) 11:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
From the previous section the appeal to content of the archives in present discussions comes into questioning by some editors. It is a rather general issue which could apply to any talk page, not just this one. What other users think about this use of the archives, when it is appropriate and when not to use archived content in present discussions?-- 5.15.178.192 ( talk) 08:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.-- 5.15.179.182 ( talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
What journals that publish articles in the field are reliable and what are not?-- 5.15.176.81 ( talk) 15:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I found the following articles that gave a favorable opinion of cold fusion:
What makes these articles somewhat credible is that they are from sources not specializing in unorthodox ideas like CF, so a major source of bias is removed. (It is not clear if any of these sources openly say that CF has been “proven” to work; I would have to check.) Should these sources be cited? If so, how would they be integrated into the article? The Wired article is a little questionable because the name Wired sounds cheesy; also, it is a hippie magazine, so it may have the bias of being oriented toward unorthodox ideas. The other sources seem more serious.-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 05:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It should be specified what are the connections between the two types of fusion.-- 5.15.41.228 ( talk) 21:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
There no good reason to archive the talk page with time between archiving of 1 month for unreplied sections. The archiving settings could be changed.-- 5.15.41.17 ( talk) 20:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Who has made the setting of archiving this page of 1 month since the last unreplied comment in sections?-- 5.15.63.120 ( talk) 21:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
How can different hypothesized mechanisms of helium generations be discerned on from another? Is the helium generated by the fusion of deuterons or by other reaction? Or both by deuteron fusion and other reaction(s)?-- 5.15.206.234 ( talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Baym & Legett 1989, and Ichimaru 1989 mention some theoretical objections to helium generation by deuteron fusion.-- 5.15.41.17 ( talk) 20:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It has been discussed whether helium is generated by fusion of deuterons or by reaction of Li-6 with neutron.-- 5.15.63.120 ( talk) 21:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Several types of models, considering or avoiding the potential barrier to fusion of deuterons are reviewed by Chechin&Tsarev Int. J. Theor Phys. (1993)-- 5.15.41.228 ( talk) 21:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The models which avoid the barrier resort to hypotheses concerning forces that could facilitate the fusion of deuterons thus making the barrier concept unnecessary.-- 5.15.63.120 ( talk) 21:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
From the previous section the appeal to content of the archives in present discussions comes into questioning by some editors. It is a rather general issue which could apply to any talk page, not just this one. What other users think about this use of the archives, when it is appropriate and when not to use archived content in present discussions?-- 5.15.178.192 ( talk) 08:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.-- 5.15.179.182 ( talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It should be specified what are the connections between the two types of fusion.-- 5.15.41.228 ( talk) 21:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
There no good reason to archive the talk page with time between archiving of 1 month for unreplied sections. The archiving settings could be changed.-- 5.15.41.17 ( talk) 20:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Who has made the setting of archiving this page of 1 month since the last unreplied comment in sections?-- 5.15.63.120 ( talk) 21:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
How can different hypothesized mechanisms of helium generations be discerned on from another? Is the helium generated by the fusion of deuterons or by other reaction? Or both by deuteron fusion and other reaction(s)?-- 5.15.206.234 ( talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Baym & Legett 1989, and Ichimaru 1989 mention some theoretical objections to helium generation by deuteron fusion.-- 5.15.41.17 ( talk) 20:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It has been discussed whether helium is generated by fusion of deuterons or by reaction of Li-6 with neutron.-- 5.15.63.120 ( talk) 21:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.-- 5.15.179.182 ( talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
How can different hypothesized mechanisms of helium generations be discerned on from another? Is the helium generated by the fusion of deuterons or by other reaction? Or both by deuteron fusion and other reaction(s)?-- 5.15.206.234 ( talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Baym & Legett 1989, and Ichimaru 1989 mention some theoretical objections to helium generation by deuteron fusion.-- 5.15.41.17 ( talk) 20:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It has been discussed whether helium is generated by fusion of deuterons or by reaction of Li-6 with neutron.-- 5.15.63.120 ( talk) 21:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a claim present in the article (by G Taubes) that requires clarification: the excess heat in FP experiments could be attributed to difference in conductivities of ionic solution of lithium salts in heavy water vs water, the heavy water solutions having much lower conductivity and thus producing a higher ohmic heating.-- 5.15.62.129 ( talk) 10:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Taubes can be cited as according to Taubes....-- 5.15.50.78 ( talk) 21:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This edit cites this paper:
{{
cite web}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last=
(
help)I can't access the text. But I can see the list of references, and they are all unrelated to cold fusion? Does this paper even mention cold fusion in its text? Can we have a quote of the relevant sentence(s)? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 14:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
In the context of the reproducibility it is interesting to notice another domain with problems in this regard, but not so controversial, the field of bioelectromagnetic studies. This has had many failures to replicate the results as pointed out by the book Biological effects of electric and magnetic fields (vol I) edited by David O. C(arpenter?), Academic Press, 1994.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 10:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the ireproducibility of materials is a feature of complex systems through chaotic behaviour (as stated at least by Kozima).-- 5.15.53.183 ( talk) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
In Pd systems it is claimed by McKubre etal that Al and Si on the surface of Pd enhances reproducibility.-- 5.15.0.43 ( talk) 11:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Some metals can lower the reproducibility, like Zn or Cu.-- 5.15.50.78 ( talk) 21:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
One of the critics (J Huizenga) of cold fusion said something about F&P missinterpreting Nernst equation. Some details should added concerning the kind of missinterpretation involved according to Huizenga's view.-- 5.15.200.238 ( talk) 18:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Huizenga seems to have used the mentioned equation to say that the fusion of the deuterons due to the lattice efect in metal hydrogen systems is improbable due to enormous pressure calculated by F&P.-- 5.15.178.93 ( talk) 21:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The equation cannot be used to deny the fusion of the deuterons.-- 5.15.50.78 ( talk) 21:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Something should be inserted in article about the quality of experiments and experimental design in regards to reproducibility, like the following text:
After the announcement of the Cold Fusion by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, there has been great debate between the deniers and the believers of the science of cold fusion phenomena. The debate continues to this day after two decades since the announcement. In other sciences, this situation is rare typically due to the fact that experiments are either reproducible or not. In this particular situation, the poor reproducibility of the experiment has been a major issue. As a result, the truth about whether or not cold fusion is even possible has been questioned. The purpose of this paper is to clarify why this unique situation occurred. We divide the process of experiment into four phases to analyze why "poor reproducibility" occurred. (1)Setting up the hypothesis, (2) Planning of experimental design, (3) Implementation of the experiment and (4) Verification of experiment. We would like to discuss what the problems have been in each phase.We interviewed the scholars in the field of Cold Fusion and found that the following problems have occurred in the four phases. (1) Hypotheses: There have been a number of hypotheses. Therefore, it has been difficult to get specific, measurable feed back. What one believes theoretical plays outs quite differently in experimental form (2) Experimental design: Each experiment may appear to have been carried out under the same conditions. However, variations appeared in the experimental results. It is possible that there were unknown conditions in metal, gas, and other components. Such unknown conditions might have not been considered in the experimental design. (3) Implementation of the experiment: Preventing the dispersion of the gas such as nano-structure of the metal as well as the gas such as hydrogen is very difficult. Hence, it has been difficult to control the experiment perfectly. (4) Verification of experiment: There has been some uncertainty about the various hypothesis and experimental conditions. It is difficult to write specifically about all the experimental conditions in the papers. Therefore, reproducing the experiments have been difficult for other researchers. In this study, we focused on the quality of the "implementation of experiment". In particular, we analyzed the prototype of the venture companies outside of Japan. We looked at the photos and the data of the prototype. We also analyzed the structure of the prototype, material, gas, and the method of heat measurement from the photos. We came to the conclusion that the results and outputs that the company claims are quite different from what they appear to be. Moreover, the data and the information which contained a lot of noise were announced without peer-reviews. In conclusion, "the lack of clear hypothesis", "difficulty in controlling the experimental conditions" and "uncertainty of information" led to the current controversy of Cold Fusion. It is important to solve these problems in order for the society of Cold Fusion to be in the main stream of the scientific society.
by E. Igari, T. Mizuno-- 5.15.41.17 ( talk) 21:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The influence of alloys electrodes can be tested.-- 5.15.50.78 ( talk) 21:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
It has been suggested above (by user Brian Josephson) that a rewritten version of the entire article (with details on both sides) is needed, not just patching it in some places. Perhaps this rewriting could be done on an auxiliary page of this talk page like Talk:Cold fusion/Rewritten version.-- 5.15.177.58 ( talk) 12:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Short of a complete rewrite, a lot of information is buried in the "history" section. Following the structure of Fusion power I think that a "Current Status" section is appropriate (of course, "current" will migrate to "history" on a timescale of maybe 5 years). A subsection of "current financing" could include the Kimmel/SKINR grant and the recent DOE funding proposal. Similarly, "current research/progress" could contain recent reports. Alanf777 ( talk) 01:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/rossi-roundup - how about adding informations from this site? -- 22merlin ( talk) 15:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Added an initial entry based on Forbes and DOE. Alanf777 ( talk) 00:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I have to say this addition still strikes me as problematic. It has an entire standalone subsection written in rather a newsy "announcement" fashion to itself, and a meaty paragraph in the lede - which all seems rather undue. More particularly though, the secondary source we use explicitly says its subject is not to be confused with "cold fusion" such as Pons-Fleischmann's efforts. Yet here we are adding it to an article on Wikipedia entitled "Cold fusion" the opening words of which are "This article is about the Fleischmann–Pons claims of nuclear fusion at room temperature". So something's wrong somewhere isn't it? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 20:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
It is becoming a habit for some editors on this page to abusively use the collapsable textbox under various pretexts when they lack other meaningful replies. The most recent example is from the section above which adress the situation of some users who lack the understanding needed to make good suggestion for improving the actual content of the article. The abusive and thus annoying use of the collapsable textbox will be removed.-- 5.15.179.182 ( talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
How can different hypothesized mechanisms of helium generations be discerned on from another? Is the helium generated by the fusion of deuterons or by other reaction? Or both by deuteron fusion and other reaction(s)?-- 5.15.206.234 ( talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Baym & Legett 1989, and Ichimaru 1989 mention some theoretical objections to helium generation by deuteron fusion.-- 5.15.41.17 ( talk) 20:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It has been discussed whether helium is generated by fusion of deuterons or by reaction of Li-6 with neutron.-- 5.15.63.120 ( talk) 21:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a claim present in the article (by G Taubes) that requires clarification: the excess heat in FP experiments could be attributed to difference in conductivities of ionic solution of lithium salts in heavy water vs water, the heavy water solutions having much lower conductivity and thus producing a higher ohmic heating.-- 5.15.62.129 ( talk) 10:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Taubes can be cited as according to Taubes....-- 5.15.50.78 ( talk) 21:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This edit cites this paper:
{{
cite web}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last=
(
help)I can't access the text. But I can see the list of references, and they are all unrelated to cold fusion? Does this paper even mention cold fusion in its text? Can we have a quote of the relevant sentence(s)? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 14:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
In the context of the reproducibility it is interesting to notice another domain with problems in this regard, but not so controversial, the field of bioelectromagnetic studies. This has had many failures to replicate the results as pointed out by the book Biological effects of electric and magnetic fields (vol I) edited by David O. C(arpenter?), Academic Press, 1994.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 10:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the ireproducibility of materials is a feature of complex systems through chaotic behaviour (as stated at least by Kozima).-- 5.15.53.183 ( talk) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
In Pd systems it is claimed by McKubre etal that Al and Si on the surface of Pd enhances reproducibility.-- 5.15.0.43 ( talk) 11:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Some metals can lower the reproducibility, like Zn or Cu.-- 5.15.50.78 ( talk) 21:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
One of the critics (J Huizenga) of cold fusion said something about F&P missinterpreting Nernst equation. Some details should added concerning the kind of missinterpretation involved according to Huizenga's view.-- 5.15.200.238 ( talk) 18:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Huizenga seems to have used the mentioned equation to say that the fusion of the deuterons due to the lattice efect in metal hydrogen systems is improbable due to enormous pressure calculated by F&P.-- 5.15.178.93 ( talk) 21:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The equation cannot be used to deny the fusion of the deuterons.-- 5.15.50.78 ( talk) 21:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Something should be inserted in article about the quality of experiments and experimental design in regards to reproducibility, like the following text:
After the announcement of the Cold Fusion by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, there has been great debate between the deniers and the believers of the science of cold fusion phenomena. The debate continues to this day after two decades since the announcement. In other sciences, this situation is rare typically due to the fact that experiments are either reproducible or not. In this particular situation, the poor reproducibility of the experiment has been a major issue. As a result, the truth about whether or not cold fusion is even possible has been questioned. The purpose of this paper is to clarify why this unique situation occurred. We divide the process of experiment into four phases to analyze why "poor reproducibility" occurred. (1)Setting up the hypothesis, (2) Planning of experimental design, (3) Implementation of the experiment and (4) Verification of experiment. We would like to discuss what the problems have been in each phase.We interviewed the scholars in the field of Cold Fusion and found that the following problems have occurred in the four phases. (1) Hypotheses: There have been a number of hypotheses. Therefore, it has been difficult to get specific, measurable feed back. What one believes theoretical plays outs quite differently in experimental form (2) Experimental design: Each experiment may appear to have been carried out under the same conditions. However, variations appeared in the experimental results. It is possible that there were unknown conditions in metal, gas, and other components. Such unknown conditions might have not been considered in the experimental design. (3) Implementation of the experiment: Preventing the dispersion of the gas such as nano-structure of the metal as well as the gas such as hydrogen is very difficult. Hence, it has been difficult to control the experiment perfectly. (4) Verification of experiment: There has been some uncertainty about the various hypothesis and experimental conditions. It is difficult to write specifically about all the experimental conditions in the papers. Therefore, reproducing the experiments have been difficult for other researchers. In this study, we focused on the quality of the "implementation of experiment". In particular, we analyzed the prototype of the venture companies outside of Japan. We looked at the photos and the data of the prototype. We also analyzed the structure of the prototype, material, gas, and the method of heat measurement from the photos. We came to the conclusion that the results and outputs that the company claims are quite different from what they appear to be. Moreover, the data and the information which contained a lot of noise were announced without peer-reviews. In conclusion, "the lack of clear hypothesis", "difficulty in controlling the experimental conditions" and "uncertainty of information" led to the current controversy of Cold Fusion. It is important to solve these problems in order for the society of Cold Fusion to be in the main stream of the scientific society.
by E. Igari, T. Mizuno-- 5.15.41.17 ( talk) 21:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The influence of alloys electrodes can be tested.-- 5.15.50.78 ( talk) 21:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
It has been suggested above (by user Brian Josephson) that a rewritten version of the entire article (with details on both sides) is needed, not just patching it in some places. Perhaps this rewriting could be done on an auxiliary page of this talk page like Talk:Cold fusion/Rewritten version.-- 5.15.177.58 ( talk) 12:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Short of a complete rewrite, a lot of information is buried in the "history" section. Following the structure of Fusion power I think that a "Current Status" section is appropriate (of course, "current" will migrate to "history" on a timescale of maybe 5 years). A subsection of "current financing" could include the Kimmel/SKINR grant and the recent DOE funding proposal. Similarly, "current research/progress" could contain recent reports. Alanf777 ( talk) 01:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/rossi-roundup - how about adding informations from this site? -- 22merlin ( talk) 15:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Added an initial entry based on Forbes and DOE. Alanf777 ( talk) 00:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I have to say this addition still strikes me as problematic. It has an entire standalone subsection written in rather a newsy "announcement" fashion to itself, and a meaty paragraph in the lede - which all seems rather undue. More particularly though, the secondary source we use explicitly says its subject is not to be confused with "cold fusion" such as Pons-Fleischmann's efforts. Yet here we are adding it to an article on Wikipedia entitled "Cold fusion" the opening words of which are "This article is about the Fleischmann–Pons claims of nuclear fusion at room temperature". So something's wrong somewhere isn't it? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 20:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/rossi-roundup - how about adding informations from this site? -- 22merlin ( talk) 15:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)