![]() | 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 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 |
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)
The statement that, 'Nuclear fusion occurs at temperatures in the tens of millions of degrees' is perhaps a little misleading, since that is only true if heating is used as the driver. Electrostatic acceleration can achieve fusion with potentials as little as a few thousand volts. This has been conclusively demonstrated by devices such as the Farnsworth fusor, which is within the scope of mainstream science. Awareness of this has a significant effect on the apparent feasibility of other fusion approaches. In fact, any propulsive force which can overcome the coulomb barrier can initiate fusion, and the energy required to do this is quite modest by particle accelerator standards. It just happens that accelerating the particles by way of heating them is a dreadfully inefficient way of achieving sufficent kinetic energy, hence the enormous temperatures needed.-- Anteaus ( talk) 17:04, 8 January 2014 (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)
An example of need to use probably the archive is shown in the section ″Connection with bubble fusion and sonoluminescence″ for revisiting a past arguing/discussion.-- 5.15.15.146 ( talk) 14:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
See "restored per Wikipedia:Notability - I strongly urge you to read the guideline before reverting".
Note that:
-- Enric Naval ( talk) 20:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
A better title would be "
Pons-Fleischmann press release". That is the static content I aim to isolate. I now think the press release should be an aditional article. (
Talk:Fleischmann-Pons_experiment#suggest_name_change)
One of the accademic objections to wikipedia is the way history can be rewritten (by annons) on a daily basis. I see no need for that. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 08:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Many of these sections use to be more elaborate. We should dig in the archives and find the most elaborate version. Then move that section to the article about that topic. If it still requires mention in the "cold fusion" article it can be brief and link to the full text.
We have a nice and very elaborate manual of style that (provided one can find the paragraph) explains everything in great detail.
Up to now the Cold fusion article was also the P&F article. To be a real Cold Fusion article the Pons and Fleischmann coverage has to be reduced dramatically. As this would be a great loss of content it makes sense to have a whole article for this.
I understand it wont be easy but when it is done we can expect new editors to understand what it is we are doing here. You might understand the article, you cant expect this from other people. I think Brian Josephson makes a fine example in this. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 10:14, 23 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)
Topic of current interest.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:02, 14 February 2014 (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 see no objections to this type of articles as sources.-- 5.15.200.152 ( talk) 14:58, 15 January 2014 (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)
So then Wired can be used.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:14, 14 February 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)
It can specified whether there is some influence from thermodynamic non- ideal alloys.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:17, 14 February 2014 (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)
Connection to field-dependent effects could be established, like Wien effect.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:43, 14 February 2014 (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)
Ironically, the extreme skepticism makes the material more notable. Until all doubt is removed we cant really place the critisim in historic context, we can try but it isn't easy. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 00:14, 21 January 2014 (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 deviation from the scientific method (by group think) has generated the shortcoming of DOE conclusions as well as the so-called incompatibilities with conventional fusion.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 17:17, 14 February 2014 (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)
See below "Classical models" section.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:46, 14 February 2014 (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)
DoE is now funding LENR research, page 7 box 3.6 http://www.floridaenergy.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/DE-FOA-0001002-FOA-IDEAS.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.89.28 ( talk) 11:12, 6 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)
Topic of current interest.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:25, 14 February 2014 (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)
The source of initial neutrons is from the background neutrons.-- 5.15.50.78 ( talk) 21:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
References for the model by the author.-- 5.15.55.216 ( talk) 00:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
An extension of TNCF could cited.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
An extension who deals with the possible existence of the trapped neutron not only in solids, but also in liquids and as solvated neutron analogously to solvated electron and solvated proton.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 17:28, 14 February 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)
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 an additional assumption in Baym&Legett for proving the impossibility theorem.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:20, 14 February 2014 (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)
Topic of current interest.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:07, 14 February 2014 (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)
The page should be delisted from bot archiving.-- 5.15.4.233 ( talk) 13:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Where are displayed the archiving settings for this page? Are they visible just for registered users? if yes, that would be a discrimination of IP's.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 15:59, 14 February 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)
Topic of current interest.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:07, 14 February 2014 (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) 4. 1 Barrier Circumvention (Avoidance)
4.1.1 Transmission Resonance (TR) 4.1.2 Lattice Induced Nuclear Chemistry (LINC) 4.1.3 Barrier Free (BF) 4.1.4 Coherent Deuteron Disintegration 4.1.5 QED Neutron Transfer 4.1.6 Bineutron (2n)
4.2 Barrier Reduction
4.2.1 Heavy Particle Catalylists (HPC) 4.2.2 Superradiance (SR) 4.2.3 Lattice Vibrations (LV) 4.2.4 Quantum Electrodynamic Confinement (QEC) 4.2.5 Screening and Effective Mass
4.3 Barrier Ascent
4.3.1 Fracto Acceleration (FA) 4.3.2 Fracto Acceleration Plasma (FAP) 4.3.3 Interface Acceleration (IA) 4.3.4 Lattice Collapse (LC) 4.3.5 Quantum Mechanical Transient
4.4 Narrow Nuclear Resonances (NNR) 4.5 Multibody Fusion 4.6 Exotic Chemistry-- 5.15.191.239 ( talk) 08:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
brought text-- 5.15.200.152 ( talk) 18:11, 15 January 2014 (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)
Topic of current interest.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:03, 14 February 2014 (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)
Bubble fusion and sonoluminescence seems to have close connection to cold fusion by mechanism as Rusi Taleyarkhan's experimental results indicate [9].-- 5.15.187.130 ( talk) 21:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The article now partly shows language that goes beyond neutral and encyclopedic attitude. Example:
Why should all researches agree on any one explanation? Are they all working together or following the same (hidden) agenda? How does a scientist achieve the classification of being "mainstream"? The whole field continues to be worked on, for whatever motives, multiple they may be, and it is WPs job to document that work, not to take side, or even support that decision to be made by the reader, for one or another side. -- Bernd.Brincken ( talk) 13:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Moved from my discussion page after a revert of my edits by User Enric Naval in this article. -
In reference to [10]. That's not original research by a wikipedia editor. The sources say, among other things, that it's a symptom of pathological science, that cold fusion proponents meet it, and that consequently the cold fusion field would have the characteristics of pathological science. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
About "nowhere near enough" to "not enough", that doesn't convey that the distance is off by an enormous amount, even assuming the most optimal circumstances. See the language in some of the sources:
-- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
And about "have not yet" and "have yet failed". I am not an English native.
"yet" implies that it will eventually happen? Aren't we making a prediction that proponents will eventually agree on one method, and that they will eventually convince other scientists? And "still" is for things that keep happening right now? It sounds to me like "still" is more correct. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Biased Language? Generally, yes. I agree with Bernd.Brincken. There's also ambiguous, undiscerning language. Take the example in the first paragraph: "It has been rejected by the mainstream scientific community because the original experimental results could not be replicated consistently and reliably, and because there is no accepted theoretical model of cold fusion."
Man, is that a loaded statement!
For one, "It" is ambiguous about what "it" is. Is "it" "the actuality of excess heat" or "the assertion that excess heat's source is fusion (D+D,D+P,etc.), or what? It's easy to muddle when we're not careful to be discerning and explicit in our writing. And when we do muddle, we open up the opportunity for any number of interpretations such as reading it as bias. If "it" means assertion of fusion as a source, and in the early years, then "rejected" might be apt. If "it" means observation of excess heat in later years, then "rejected" not so much.
Also "loaded" into the question is the idea that a field requires an "accepted theoretical model" to be valid. Mankind made excellent use of fire for a few years, and even engineered with it, before we understood fire or heat. We accepted and rejected numerous models of heat all the while warming our toes with it. Not having acceptance of one model of something is not a basis for acceptance or rejection of the fact of it (as is implied by the statement). In this case, only excellent calorimetry can do that.
The statement implies rejection for all time. In the earlier days both a fusion explanation and excess heat were rejected in large part, now the actuality of excess heat and even it's source being binding energy (by some pathway) isn't so widely frowned upon. In the beginning those ideas were frowned on, but not so much now. The tone asserts a strong rejection of all of "it" over the entire 25 years.
Not least, the statement is
argument from authority. It implies an idea that science is something to be adjudicated by a body of mainstream authority. Ugh! Science is assessed by the testing of models for reliability and throwing them out when they fail. It isn't presided over.
Ubewu (
talk)
05:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
It was hard to figure out whether "it" meant "the Cold Fusion name", or "the assertion that only fusion is the source", or "the measurement of excess energy", or any of a number of interpretations. I'm glad you came along and clarified it for me with such authority. Since "it" is ambiguous, we should clarify that in the text as well. Apparently, according to an authority, it means "the entire field, every thing about it, and for the whole of the last 25 years". We should clarify "it" with words to that effect. Since there is no bias, clarifying "it" like that shouldn't cause any change in the current cool, cut-and-dried, exclusively rational tone. Right? Ubewu ( talk) 03:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
You're right about my version being excessive. I was being melodramatic and snotty. Sorry, it was somewhat uncivil of me. :-) Ubewu ( talk) 20:43, 1 February 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)
The statement that, 'Nuclear fusion occurs at temperatures in the tens of millions of degrees' is perhaps a little misleading, since that is only true if heating is used as the driver. Electrostatic acceleration can achieve fusion with potentials as little as a few thousand volts. This has been conclusively demonstrated by devices such as the Farnsworth fusor, which is within the scope of mainstream science. Awareness of this has a significant effect on the apparent feasibility of other fusion approaches. In fact, any propulsive force which can overcome the coulomb barrier can initiate fusion, and the energy required to do this is quite modest by particle accelerator standards. It just happens that accelerating the particles by way of heating them is a dreadfully inefficient way of achieving sufficent kinetic energy, hence the enormous temperatures needed.-- Anteaus ( talk) 17:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not interested in asserting or exposing any editor conspiracy, that said I would like to know howmany users have been banned for being overly optimistic. It seems a very popular motivation to ban people. I'm most interested in the way the confusing scope creates such disagreements.
A simple example would be the endless discussion about including NASA in this article. At first sight the article contains many news sources. Further examination reveals that the only sub topic that may use such sources is our Pons and Fleismann coverage. At first sight I thought not including NASA was very biased editing. In the amount of time it took me to figure this out I could have easily been banned. To state the obvious: Wikipedia has many articles. Millions of them. Some topics have thousands of articles. 1500 mentions of Power Rangers is my favorite example. Cramping everything related to cold fusion into one article create a very confusing scope. This comes at a price, the price is that we will have to ban many users who simply don't get it. Whatever you think is accomplished it cant be worth that much. I see over 800 Paula abdul articles. These have been written using the same notability policy. I don't want to work with editors who each think the scope of the article is something different. It is a terrible idea, I've tried this, it didn't work. It had no effect.
Your thoughts? 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 09:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
(deleted) 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 03:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree.
Try assume good faith.
You dont have to maintain anything.
The topics can be separated.
It is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.
That is the way [wp:spinout]] works.
We dont create articles by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we use the notability guidelines.
The Water fueled car is an imaginary automobile that hypothetically derives its energy directly from water. Our article has sections with their own article. Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell has a section Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car and the Gasoline pill to!
If our pseudoscience can have all these nice things, then why would we deny the professors this?
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 09:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done
I would like to see a link above the section: " Cold fusion#Fleischmann-Pons experiment"
It only needs copy/pasting into the section. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 22:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The section Cold fusion#Events preceding announcement doesn't have to be in this article. The exact text is available here: Fleischmann-Pons_experiment#Events preceding announcement.
It extends slightly into the next section:
The section and the paragraph can just be removed without loosing anything. (feel free to do so if you have editing privilages) 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 22:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
note: Rather than follow my instructions, the spin out article has how been deleted by consensus. The spin out was considered duplicate content(!?), a pov fork(?!) and many other nonsensical motivations, this while non of my arguments have been addressed(?!) A consensus of invalid arguments is still a consensus of course. For now I will just accept that you cant read the edit guidelines when asked to. I may consider deletion review later but until I do the deletions proposed here should not be implemented. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 10:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cold_fusion&diff=595860863&oldid=595841265
I know this argument was really used to reject the Pons and Fleischmann replication results but our wording doesn't sound as sensible as it should. We fail to explain why a theoretical model would be necessary for the acceptance of experimental results.
The theoretical model was only relevant to the experimental results because so many results sit on the edge of the error margin. With a model there would be a vague effect, without a model the replication results look more like measurement errors.
Sticking with the correct scope is also important.
We currently have this:
I suggest this to be more accurate:
I prefer "existed" because after rejection publication of such theories had been refused. ( Julian Schwinger wrote no less than eight theoretical papers after the rejection) There is no need to attribute it to "the mainstream scientific community" because wikipedia doesn't do statements of facts without it. But if you want it inthere I have no objection. Something like:
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 10:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Science picks up where theology leaves off. When a theist or creationist says “and then a miracle happens,” as wittily portrayed in my favorite Sydney Harris cartoon of the two mathematicians at the chalkboard with the invocation tucked in the middle of a string of equations, I quote from the cartoon’s caption: “I think you need to be more explicit here in step two.”
— in Russell Blackford and Udo Schüklenk (eds.) 50 Voices of Disbelief : Why We Are Atheists Wiley-Blackwell (2009) ISBN 978-1-4051-9045-9
Without a testable hypothesis which withstands experimental testing, there is no science in the theory, just blind faith. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe most of them tagged by 5.15.183.49 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) are not "topics of current interest", and should be archived, manually, if necessary. If consensus can be obtained, I have an extension installed which allows me to click the "Archive" button on a thread, and it usually gets archived. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I see that those threads are concerned with aspects that should be mentioned in article and they have not been objected to inclusion, however they seem undecided and thus of current interest.-- 86.120.172.55 ( talk) 07:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
How have you assessed the support? By counting votes (3.5 Support to 2 Oppose)?-- 5.15.32.35 ( talk) 12:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that you make a change for the benefit of themselves and the poor science inventor. With the changes and can make wikipedia, monetary thank for these research Mount inventor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.127.155.170 ( talk) 18:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Ill mention some of the topics of current interest to be discussed.-- 5.15.35.32 ( talk) 14:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I found a RS that quotes Huizenga's assessment of Nernst equation in the context of analysing electrolysis. It doesn't find any problem with Huizenga's assessment: "The general message [of Huizenga's assessment] is clear: in using our pre-equilibrium arguments to establish Eq. (2.43), we must ensure that the pre-equilibrium is actually operative if the equation is to be meaningful. If large currents are being drawn, this may not be the case. Accordingly, the reader might note the need for caution in applying the analysis derived in Section 2.8. He/she might also wish to review the discussion of the Nernst equation in Chapter 1 of this book." Understanding Voltammetry pp. 56-57
The only other RS I can find is in German: Ebert K; Nachr. Chem. Tech. Lab. 37 (1989) 470 (in German). "Elektrochemisch induzierte Fusion von Deuterium" (Electrochemically induced fusion of deuterium). [16]. Dieter's summary is "(...) The article is not very critical, raising only a slight doubt as to the applicability of the Nernst equation to an overvoltage (the famous 0.8eV)"
-- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
What exactly is the excerpt from the Huot reference cited by Huizenga in his book?-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 12:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
text from archive by Brian Josephson which refers to the Hout reference in Huizenga's book:
I've now looked up the paper by Huot that Huizenga cites, and there seems to be a big gap between what he says and any assertion in the paper itself. If Huizenga thought there was some implication from the paper such as he asserts, he didn't go to any trouble to spell out his reasoning. The conclusion from all this would appear to be that Huizenga's assertion is overblown, and I suggest that instead of trying to summarise what people think about it as EN suggests that assertion simply be deleted from the article as having insufficient support.--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
end of text from archive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 14:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The excerpt is very important for enabling the understanding whether Huizenga's criticism is valid or not.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 11:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
This topic is closely connected to that of Types of models. A source for this can be the paper by Baim and Legget Phys Rev.-- 5.15.37.240 ( talk) 19:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
-- Brian Josephson ( talk) 09:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)... we agree with your implied position that one should keep an open mind about phenomena (including at least some of those usually regarded as "para-normal") which while not clearly violating the basic laws of physics as we know them do not have any obvious explanation within these laws. In such cases the ultimate arbiter is experiment.
Considering the aspects from the previous section regarding the discrimination of mechanisms by experiments which are the ultimate arbiter the question of how experiments should be designed to allow gathering of useful data for understanding and discerning the mechanisms appears stringent.-- 5.15.53.36 ( talk) 17:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The designed experiments must be (due to the issue of reproducibility) statistically analyzed. An example of (citable) statistical analysis is given by AIP source.-- 5.15.53.36 ( talk) 17:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
An appropiate source for this topic would the paper by Chechin and Tsarev from International Journal of Theoretical Physics.-- 5.15.37.240 ( talk) 19:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
New Publication on the website of the Board of Education and Science http://snto.ru/feedbacks?cid=8&item=56 New publication "Results " http://www.itogi.ru/paradox/2013/35/193536.html Hello could you mene help promote technology and can my film about cold fusion technology will help in prodvezhenii . Are you concerned about Rasulov Alexey, for what reason . I spoke at an international congress in 2010 http://www.physical-congress.spb.ru/2 ... on the issue of cold fusion . Now published an article about cold fusion is in the WAC in the journal "Energetic" publication in May 2013 http://www.energetik.energy-journals.ru/content/2013/5-2013/. Could you assist me in advancing technology , to show interest in this technology , it's the same technology as nuclear fusion , ie project " ITER " , please give a note that a competitor tokamaks. here's another article in the papers on this topic for each other Kursk http://www.dddkursk.ru/number/895/pla ..., and red star http://www.redstar.ru/2012/01/21_01/ 3 .... As there is a publication in the Journal of the inventor and innovator in May article called lightning to nuclear power plants. Recycled paper for analysis attached. Also have a group on the website of the Russian nuclear community http://www.atomic-energy.ru/papers/24062. Waiting for a reply by email. My phone 89508760167 . Address Kursk, Kursk region , village Vorontsov , 68 305 501 Index . Sincerely Rasulov AV
109.127.181.110 ( talk) 23:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
JzG - - I assume that you will be here in person rather than in 'bot', since you have been forewarned on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (→Cold Fusion: new section)
"There's some talk page activity suggesting a resumption of the long term POV-push, and our favourite Nobelist is there too. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)"
You (JzG) eliminated a sentence "In 2007 they established their own peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. [6] " based on its link to a "not reliable secondary source" (your claim). If there were a link to a commercial advertisement in the NYT about the JCMNS, instead of the ISCMNS link, would that be acceptable to you?
You are wrong on several counts that betray both your POV or carelessness. Assuming that cold fusion is "fringe" today (with over 4,000,000 hits on Google) and stating that a peer-reviewed journal (JCMNS) is "not reliable" is purely POV (yours or that of those you are supporting). Stating that the link is to the journal rather than to an organization's website (ISCMNS, a reliable secondary source for this purpose) is carelessness. Deleting important material, which had been discussed previously, with only a cryptic and invalid comment is not appropriate: 4 April 2014 JzG ... (they created a journal, source: link to the journal. Which is not a reliable secondary source.)
I went through the anti-fringe argument 1.5 years ago in this talk area and no one could come up with a valid reason for maintaining CF as a fringe topic. The topic could be considered "WP:controversial"; but, despite the major effort of the anti-CF group to keep documentation of mainstream research and publication out of the article, considering it to be fringe is untenable. It is only the unwillingness of that group to allow sufficient post-2000 publications to remain in the article that they can convince themselves (and certain administrators) to maintain the charade of their fringe argument. Aqm2241 ( talk) 17:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Who are the authors of this recent mentioned book? This labeling "example of institutionalized fringe science" is just rant.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 11:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
New Publication on the website of the Board of Education and Science http://snto.ru/feedbacks?cid=8&item=56 New publication "Results " http://www.itogi.ru/paradox/2013/35/193536.html Hello could you mene help promote technology and can my film about cold fusion technology will help in prodvezhenii . Are you concerned about Rasulov Alexey, for what reason . I spoke at an international congress in 2010 http://www.physical-congress.spb.ru/2 ... on the issue of cold fusion . Now published an article about cold fusion is in the WAC in the journal "Energetic" publication in May 2013 http://www.energetik.energy-journals.ru/content/2013/5-2013/. Could you assist me in advancing technology , to show interest in this technology , it's the same technology as nuclear fusion , ie project " ITER " , please give a note that a competitor tokamaks. here's another article in the papers on this topic for each other Kursk http://www.dddkursk.ru/number/895/pla ..., and red star http://www.redstar.ru/2012/01/21_01/ 3 .... As there is a publication in the Journal of the inventor and innovator in May article called lightning to nuclear power plants. Recycled paper for analysis attached. Also have a group on the website of the Russian nuclear community http://www.atomic-energy.ru/papers/24062. Waiting for a reply by email. My phone 89508760167 . Address Kursk, Kursk region , village Vorontsov , 68 305 501 Index . Sincerely Rasulov AV
109.127.181.110 ( talk) 23:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems that some users are making unfounded allusions of semi-protection of this talk page.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 10:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I notice on this page and from its history that attempts of obstructive ending of valid discussions by tendentious archiving and other means by some users (JzG, Binksternet, etc). This is an example of unacceptable behaviour.-- 193.254.231.34 ( talk) 10:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I see that it has been suggesting that edits should be commented, not behaviour. A recent edit like that of McSly of trying prevent legitimate comments is unaceptable.-- 82.137.14.162 ( talk) 18:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum. This page is for actionable proposals regarding improvements to the article, see WP:TPG. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Objections to someone's edits should not be hidden.-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 06:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I see that there some aspects concerning the (re)use of the archive have been discussed here. I consider that some archived sections such as Edit requests can be reused adding subsections with date of request.
I also notice that there are some users who remove other editors comments or objections to their edits, objections that should not be removed.-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 06:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I explained above the reuse of archive to add subsections when when a user (McSly) interrupts my subsections I was about to add.-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 22:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
His interruption of my intended additions cause disruption to the flow of writing aspects to include in article and are not to be accepted.-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 22:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I notice this very interesting feature of closure of some subsection by JzG (see above at topic of current interest). He has no right of closure for unsettled topics just based on his personal opinion. His abusive closure will be undone.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 11:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The section will be restored. No one has the right to archive aspects whose inclusion needs to be discussed.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 12:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Edits appear above from IP addresses 109.127.181.110 and 109.127.155.170 both with the same ADSL provider in Kursk. If they are for one person, would you please consider registering an account? Registration is free and actually improves your privacy. It is quite difficult to hold a real discussion with someone whose name and address keeps changing. Details are at wp:WHYREGISTER. If you prefer, you can register on the Russian-language Wikipedia, as accounts carry across between languages. Thank you. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Nehotela you Zalata fee izibretatelyu grief, and then here in Russia small fees or none at all, you can publish material after talks addressed alexras.82 @ mail.ru Rasulov A.V. Posmotrimte movie about cold fusion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGrTWCcsYk8 In this article, you can take anything you publish yourself, http://www.physical-congress.spb.ru/download/cong10% 2803% 29.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexras82 ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I also notice a suggestion by Enric Naval that is not complying with all guidelines, that technical content should be managed without understanding of topics edited. Insistance of editing certain topics with undestanding them is becoming disruptive and vandalism.-- 193.254.231.34 ( talk) 10:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |}
The analysis of the second DOE report should be more detailed in the article.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 16:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the best proposal in this case is adding some details from the mentioned available sources like the report proper and Choi and Feder. Especially the paragraph 4 from Feder is interesting to cite.-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 21:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Not relevant to the article |
---|
The editing of this talk page is disruptive and involves talk page edit warring. There have been too many allegations of disruptive editing of this talk page, which are themselves disruptive. There has been a silly edit war as to whether to insert or remove a list of publications. There is no reason given for removing the material. Personal attacks, trolling, or disruptive material may be removed, but there is no need to remove a list of questionable publications. Stop edit warring.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
00:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
There are statements being made by unregistered editors that cold fusion is no longer considered fringe science. Those statements are simply contrary to scientific consensus. If the unregistered editors are here to make the case that cold fusion is no longer considered fringe science, they are wasting electrons. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
|
The template at the top of this talk page referring to sanctions linked to the wrong ArbCom case, which had to do with climate change. I have changed it to link to /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience, because cold fusion is considered by the mainstream scientific community to be fringe science or pseudoscience as usually defined. There was also an ArbCom case entitled Cold Fusion, but it was decided after Pseudoscience and resulted in a few editors being topic-banned. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Pretending something is pseudoscience while it is not is a great example of unacceptable behavior. 84.107.128.52 ( talk) 07:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
FYI - those who want to, you might consider including:
Y. Liu, R. Rousseau, "Towards a representation...", Information Processing and Management, 48, (2012), 791
as a ref to the mainstream rejection of CF. Quotes:
"These are clear indications that the theory of cold fusion is not accepted." - Section 9. "The Fleischmann-Pons article provides a case of an immediate explosion of attention, soon followed by the rejection of the ideas proposed in it." - Conclusions Kirk shanahan ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Not relevant to the article |
---|
I have been told that disruptive editing of talk pages for articles that are subject to
discretionary sanctions is subject to discretionary sanctions. The posting of walls of text to this talk page is disruptive editing. If the reason that the unregistered editors are here is to get this article rewritten to state that
cold fusion is considered science rather than
fringe science, then they are wasting electrons. Any further disruptive posts will be reported to
arbitration enforcement, and possibly to
sockpuppet investigations.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
19:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
|
E-cat, like many other cold fusion claims before it, seems like a flash in the pan publicity stunt. I suggest removing mention of it from this article per WP:ONEWAY. jps ( talk) 12:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I would like to add this:
A review of the subject by Storms in 2010 suggests that the reactions do not occur uniformly throughout the electrode but rather in small sites referred to as ‘Nuclear Active Sites’, the exact nature of which is not well understood. “Because the number of these sites is variable, many failures are experienced when no active sites are present… Often, failed replication results when important nano-structures are not present, conditions that are very difficult to reproduce reliably.”
to the bottom of the section on 'Reproducibility', anyone have a problem with this? source is: Storms, Edmund, "Status of Cold Fusion (2010)," Naturwissenschaften, 97:861–881, (2010) [ [18]] Insertcleverphrasehere ( talk) 20:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The Storms review is only a reliable source for what cold fusion proponents believe and does not qualify as the highest quality source we would use for an evaluation of a subject by WP:FRIND. Note that the text you are advocating is basically a rehash of Storms particular idea that the lack of reproducibility is due to a phenomenon he, as far as I can tell, invented out of whole cloth and is advocated by no one but himself. That there has been no critical review of his claims is simply a side effect of the research into cold fusion being marginalized, but 1) as there was obviously no critical review in place for that article, 2) Naturwissenchaften certainly did not choose a critical reviewer for the article, and 3) the whole point of putting storms on the board was so that he could handle submissions of cold fusion papers and similar subjects to the journal, it's obvious to me that we have a situation where the journal was basically allowing cold fusion promotion to be published unencumbered by critical review. That's not uncommon for medium to low impact journals. I can point to a number of journals which have done the same thing over the years from time to time in a lot of different areas. The idea is that if you relax your review standards you can get more papers published and perhaps increase the standing of the journal. This technique, however, tends to backfire after others notice the pattern. I see that Storms is no longer listed on the editorial board of Naturwissenchaften, for example. I wonder if they decided that this experiment was not in their own best interest. Well, this is speculation, but it is important to go through when evaluating whether sources are reliable for the approaches desired. In this case, I am pretty convinced that this is not a reliable source for anything but Storms' opinions, and you haven't made a convincing case that Storms' opinions should be included in this article. jps ( talk) 12:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems clear to everyone that YES the only reason he could get this review published was because he was put on the review board which in my mind is sad. That the scientific community won't allow any discussion on a topic that has changed quite a lot in the past 20 years. I will note that the citation count is probably pretty irrelevant, as most CF papers aren't actually listed in google scholar. I'm going to give up now as I'm sick of arguing and its making me feel frustrated and i feel this has gone on long enough. Anyone who 'supports' CF even tentatively or sceptically has abandoned these wikipedia articles because of the difficulty of citing anything and don't blame them. I don't blame you guys either you are just following the rules.
I want to ask a question though. What if this wikipedia article is affecting the 'consensus' or overall viewpoint of CF? Wikipedia has grown beyond being a simple encyclopaedia, due in no small part to great contributors such as yourselves. When people want an answer to a question, such as "is there anything to this cold fusion thing that I've heard about?" where is the first place they look? My guess, 90% of the time it is this article. (I wonder if there is a way to check via google records). With that sort of thing happening there isn't much chance of a change without some massive irrefutable event. I am not saying that anything can be done, it is just something to think about. Does wikipedia's stance on Fringe articles affect the entire evolution of that fringe environment given wikipedia's high status? Insertcleverphrasehere ( talk) 06:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I propose that, if anyone wants changes to the article, we should first get Wikipedia consensus via a Request for Comments. The first question that I plan to include in the RFC is whether cold fusion is considered by most of the academic community to be pathological science. The second question is which of the four categories of questionable science, as defined by the ArbCom, cold fusion belongs to. The four categories are: first, areas that are universally considered to be pseudoscience; second, areas that are generally considered to be pseudoscience, but that have a following, such as astrology; third, areas that are widely accepted as valid, but are considered by some to be pseudoscience, such as psychoanalysis; and, fourth, alternative scientific formulations. Does anyone want to add any other questions to the RFC? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
See WP:ARBPS, principles 15 through 18, for the four categories. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I would first like to point out a flaw in the coverage of this article, which I'm sure has been pointed out in full before now, however I will bring it up again and expect a reasoned and reasonable response from level headed wikipedia seniors and not a reactionary response involving name calling and abuse as has occurred on this talk page previously. I also fully admit that I am not a regular wikipedia contributor, but am a scientist (an academic Engineering Geologist and Biologist).
Regarding the current war on this article because of a POV issue regarding a sliding scale with 'believers' on one side and 'blind rejecters' on the other separated by a healthy amount of middle ground people as well, I respect those that have the viewpoint that Wikipedia should only support reliable sources and enforce that policy.
However it should be noted that there is a group of researchers actively researching cold fusion claims. As most users who frequent this talk page well know. These scientists, despite a wish to do so, and a strict adherence to scientific method, regardless of whether their paper supports or does not support the subject cannot be accepted by peer reviewed mainstream journals or by the patent process. This results in an unfair situation in which those wishing to investigate the field within the realm of scientific endeavour will be unable to publish regardless of the outcome of their experiment, this is unscientific (the previous sentence is original research, but is included for context). This has resulted in this entire field writing articles and publishing them in journals that are reviewed only by other CF scientists or by self publishing without peer review, this is a damn shame but unavoidable given the wider scientific consensus.
QUESTION: Does this mean that we are categorically not allowed to post information form these articles?
From what I have read regarding fringe policy on wikipedia... it appears not, see the following comment:
Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
This indicates that these sources may be included, so long as it is noted that the views are those of the group of researchers from that journal and not of the wider scientific community.
1. The above sentence seems to indicate that a lot of information that has been gathered by researchers in non peer reviewed journals that has perviously been denied access to the article by that (unavoidable) status should be included in this article, under a heading of 'non peer reviewed material' of course.
2. While I realise that the Scientific Community is of the consensus that CF is not real, I also note that this article is NOT a science article, its is a FRINGE article. Therefore under different rules regarding the inclusion of non peer reviewed journal articles. It appears to me that this policy has not been followed, given the apparent removal of nearly all information in the article not directly opposing cold fusion or else related to the original 1989 experiments and immediate aftermath (as opposed to what I remember about the article state 1 year ago, widom-larsden theory info comes to mind, and I would be curious to know why it was removed.)
3. Within the article, few references to the ongoing work in this community is mentioned, and where mentioned the comments seem to be always cited from a highly derisive point of view from some mainstream source, rather than any citation from a primary source (which of course would be non peer reviewed due to peer reviewed journal policy).
possible solution: I suggest that following the guideline above from Wikipedia:Fringe more primary sources from non-peer reviewed JOURNAL articles be included in a new section entitled 'Ongoing Fringe Research' or something similar. Always of course form the point of view or noting that this research is the views of the group represented by that journal and not of the wider scientific community.
NOTE: caution must be taken, as 'believers' may attempt to use any change in policy to insert quite a lot of unreliable stuff, HOWEVER, this should be balanced against the outright rejection of all sources by 'blind rejecters' which is also unacceptable. (note that the two terms used in the previous sentence are my own personal opinion and should not be construed as derision of a wikipedia user's personal character, rather they are labels based on my own scientific belief in impartiality and the weighing of all information regardless of source based on its own merits and credibility)
as stated above I would like some responses from moderators regarding these interpretations and consider any comments mocking my personal character to by highly unacceptable. Insertcleverphrasehere ( talk) 06:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Seeing this discussion I have to underline in this context that the article mentions some (cluster of) peer reviewed journals. Articles from the mentioned journals could be used to add further content details. These are reputable journals.-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 07:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |separator=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |separator=
ignored (
help)
![]() | 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 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 |
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)
The statement that, 'Nuclear fusion occurs at temperatures in the tens of millions of degrees' is perhaps a little misleading, since that is only true if heating is used as the driver. Electrostatic acceleration can achieve fusion with potentials as little as a few thousand volts. This has been conclusively demonstrated by devices such as the Farnsworth fusor, which is within the scope of mainstream science. Awareness of this has a significant effect on the apparent feasibility of other fusion approaches. In fact, any propulsive force which can overcome the coulomb barrier can initiate fusion, and the energy required to do this is quite modest by particle accelerator standards. It just happens that accelerating the particles by way of heating them is a dreadfully inefficient way of achieving sufficent kinetic energy, hence the enormous temperatures needed.-- Anteaus ( talk) 17:04, 8 January 2014 (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)
An example of need to use probably the archive is shown in the section ″Connection with bubble fusion and sonoluminescence″ for revisiting a past arguing/discussion.-- 5.15.15.146 ( talk) 14:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
See "restored per Wikipedia:Notability - I strongly urge you to read the guideline before reverting".
Note that:
-- Enric Naval ( talk) 20:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
A better title would be "
Pons-Fleischmann press release". That is the static content I aim to isolate. I now think the press release should be an aditional article. (
Talk:Fleischmann-Pons_experiment#suggest_name_change)
One of the accademic objections to wikipedia is the way history can be rewritten (by annons) on a daily basis. I see no need for that. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 08:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Many of these sections use to be more elaborate. We should dig in the archives and find the most elaborate version. Then move that section to the article about that topic. If it still requires mention in the "cold fusion" article it can be brief and link to the full text.
We have a nice and very elaborate manual of style that (provided one can find the paragraph) explains everything in great detail.
Up to now the Cold fusion article was also the P&F article. To be a real Cold Fusion article the Pons and Fleischmann coverage has to be reduced dramatically. As this would be a great loss of content it makes sense to have a whole article for this.
I understand it wont be easy but when it is done we can expect new editors to understand what it is we are doing here. You might understand the article, you cant expect this from other people. I think Brian Josephson makes a fine example in this. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 10:14, 23 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)
Topic of current interest.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:02, 14 February 2014 (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 see no objections to this type of articles as sources.-- 5.15.200.152 ( talk) 14:58, 15 January 2014 (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)
So then Wired can be used.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:14, 14 February 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)
It can specified whether there is some influence from thermodynamic non- ideal alloys.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:17, 14 February 2014 (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)
Connection to field-dependent effects could be established, like Wien effect.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:43, 14 February 2014 (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)
Ironically, the extreme skepticism makes the material more notable. Until all doubt is removed we cant really place the critisim in historic context, we can try but it isn't easy. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 00:14, 21 January 2014 (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 deviation from the scientific method (by group think) has generated the shortcoming of DOE conclusions as well as the so-called incompatibilities with conventional fusion.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 17:17, 14 February 2014 (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)
See below "Classical models" section.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:46, 14 February 2014 (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)
DoE is now funding LENR research, page 7 box 3.6 http://www.floridaenergy.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/DE-FOA-0001002-FOA-IDEAS.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.89.28 ( talk) 11:12, 6 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)
Topic of current interest.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:25, 14 February 2014 (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)
The source of initial neutrons is from the background neutrons.-- 5.15.50.78 ( talk) 21:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
References for the model by the author.-- 5.15.55.216 ( talk) 00:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
An extension of TNCF could cited.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
An extension who deals with the possible existence of the trapped neutron not only in solids, but also in liquids and as solvated neutron analogously to solvated electron and solvated proton.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 17:28, 14 February 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)
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 an additional assumption in Baym&Legett for proving the impossibility theorem.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:20, 14 February 2014 (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)
Topic of current interest.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:07, 14 February 2014 (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)
The page should be delisted from bot archiving.-- 5.15.4.233 ( talk) 13:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Where are displayed the archiving settings for this page? Are they visible just for registered users? if yes, that would be a discrimination of IP's.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 15:59, 14 February 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)
Topic of current interest.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:07, 14 February 2014 (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) 4. 1 Barrier Circumvention (Avoidance)
4.1.1 Transmission Resonance (TR) 4.1.2 Lattice Induced Nuclear Chemistry (LINC) 4.1.3 Barrier Free (BF) 4.1.4 Coherent Deuteron Disintegration 4.1.5 QED Neutron Transfer 4.1.6 Bineutron (2n)
4.2 Barrier Reduction
4.2.1 Heavy Particle Catalylists (HPC) 4.2.2 Superradiance (SR) 4.2.3 Lattice Vibrations (LV) 4.2.4 Quantum Electrodynamic Confinement (QEC) 4.2.5 Screening and Effective Mass
4.3 Barrier Ascent
4.3.1 Fracto Acceleration (FA) 4.3.2 Fracto Acceleration Plasma (FAP) 4.3.3 Interface Acceleration (IA) 4.3.4 Lattice Collapse (LC) 4.3.5 Quantum Mechanical Transient
4.4 Narrow Nuclear Resonances (NNR) 4.5 Multibody Fusion 4.6 Exotic Chemistry-- 5.15.191.239 ( talk) 08:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
brought text-- 5.15.200.152 ( talk) 18:11, 15 January 2014 (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)
Topic of current interest.-- 5.15.183.49 ( talk) 16:03, 14 February 2014 (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)
Bubble fusion and sonoluminescence seems to have close connection to cold fusion by mechanism as Rusi Taleyarkhan's experimental results indicate [9].-- 5.15.187.130 ( talk) 21:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The article now partly shows language that goes beyond neutral and encyclopedic attitude. Example:
Why should all researches agree on any one explanation? Are they all working together or following the same (hidden) agenda? How does a scientist achieve the classification of being "mainstream"? The whole field continues to be worked on, for whatever motives, multiple they may be, and it is WPs job to document that work, not to take side, or even support that decision to be made by the reader, for one or another side. -- Bernd.Brincken ( talk) 13:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Moved from my discussion page after a revert of my edits by User Enric Naval in this article. -
In reference to [10]. That's not original research by a wikipedia editor. The sources say, among other things, that it's a symptom of pathological science, that cold fusion proponents meet it, and that consequently the cold fusion field would have the characteristics of pathological science. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
About "nowhere near enough" to "not enough", that doesn't convey that the distance is off by an enormous amount, even assuming the most optimal circumstances. See the language in some of the sources:
-- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
And about "have not yet" and "have yet failed". I am not an English native.
"yet" implies that it will eventually happen? Aren't we making a prediction that proponents will eventually agree on one method, and that they will eventually convince other scientists? And "still" is for things that keep happening right now? It sounds to me like "still" is more correct. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Biased Language? Generally, yes. I agree with Bernd.Brincken. There's also ambiguous, undiscerning language. Take the example in the first paragraph: "It has been rejected by the mainstream scientific community because the original experimental results could not be replicated consistently and reliably, and because there is no accepted theoretical model of cold fusion."
Man, is that a loaded statement!
For one, "It" is ambiguous about what "it" is. Is "it" "the actuality of excess heat" or "the assertion that excess heat's source is fusion (D+D,D+P,etc.), or what? It's easy to muddle when we're not careful to be discerning and explicit in our writing. And when we do muddle, we open up the opportunity for any number of interpretations such as reading it as bias. If "it" means assertion of fusion as a source, and in the early years, then "rejected" might be apt. If "it" means observation of excess heat in later years, then "rejected" not so much.
Also "loaded" into the question is the idea that a field requires an "accepted theoretical model" to be valid. Mankind made excellent use of fire for a few years, and even engineered with it, before we understood fire or heat. We accepted and rejected numerous models of heat all the while warming our toes with it. Not having acceptance of one model of something is not a basis for acceptance or rejection of the fact of it (as is implied by the statement). In this case, only excellent calorimetry can do that.
The statement implies rejection for all time. In the earlier days both a fusion explanation and excess heat were rejected in large part, now the actuality of excess heat and even it's source being binding energy (by some pathway) isn't so widely frowned upon. In the beginning those ideas were frowned on, but not so much now. The tone asserts a strong rejection of all of "it" over the entire 25 years.
Not least, the statement is
argument from authority. It implies an idea that science is something to be adjudicated by a body of mainstream authority. Ugh! Science is assessed by the testing of models for reliability and throwing them out when they fail. It isn't presided over.
Ubewu (
talk)
05:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
It was hard to figure out whether "it" meant "the Cold Fusion name", or "the assertion that only fusion is the source", or "the measurement of excess energy", or any of a number of interpretations. I'm glad you came along and clarified it for me with such authority. Since "it" is ambiguous, we should clarify that in the text as well. Apparently, according to an authority, it means "the entire field, every thing about it, and for the whole of the last 25 years". We should clarify "it" with words to that effect. Since there is no bias, clarifying "it" like that shouldn't cause any change in the current cool, cut-and-dried, exclusively rational tone. Right? Ubewu ( talk) 03:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
You're right about my version being excessive. I was being melodramatic and snotty. Sorry, it was somewhat uncivil of me. :-) Ubewu ( talk) 20:43, 1 February 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)
The statement that, 'Nuclear fusion occurs at temperatures in the tens of millions of degrees' is perhaps a little misleading, since that is only true if heating is used as the driver. Electrostatic acceleration can achieve fusion with potentials as little as a few thousand volts. This has been conclusively demonstrated by devices such as the Farnsworth fusor, which is within the scope of mainstream science. Awareness of this has a significant effect on the apparent feasibility of other fusion approaches. In fact, any propulsive force which can overcome the coulomb barrier can initiate fusion, and the energy required to do this is quite modest by particle accelerator standards. It just happens that accelerating the particles by way of heating them is a dreadfully inefficient way of achieving sufficent kinetic energy, hence the enormous temperatures needed.-- Anteaus ( talk) 17:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not interested in asserting or exposing any editor conspiracy, that said I would like to know howmany users have been banned for being overly optimistic. It seems a very popular motivation to ban people. I'm most interested in the way the confusing scope creates such disagreements.
A simple example would be the endless discussion about including NASA in this article. At first sight the article contains many news sources. Further examination reveals that the only sub topic that may use such sources is our Pons and Fleismann coverage. At first sight I thought not including NASA was very biased editing. In the amount of time it took me to figure this out I could have easily been banned. To state the obvious: Wikipedia has many articles. Millions of them. Some topics have thousands of articles. 1500 mentions of Power Rangers is my favorite example. Cramping everything related to cold fusion into one article create a very confusing scope. This comes at a price, the price is that we will have to ban many users who simply don't get it. Whatever you think is accomplished it cant be worth that much. I see over 800 Paula abdul articles. These have been written using the same notability policy. I don't want to work with editors who each think the scope of the article is something different. It is a terrible idea, I've tried this, it didn't work. It had no effect.
Your thoughts? 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 09:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
(deleted) 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 03:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree.
Try assume good faith.
You dont have to maintain anything.
The topics can be separated.
It is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.
That is the way [wp:spinout]] works.
We dont create articles by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we use the notability guidelines.
The Water fueled car is an imaginary automobile that hypothetically derives its energy directly from water. Our article has sections with their own article. Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell has a section Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car and the Gasoline pill to!
If our pseudoscience can have all these nice things, then why would we deny the professors this?
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 09:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done
I would like to see a link above the section: " Cold fusion#Fleischmann-Pons experiment"
It only needs copy/pasting into the section. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 22:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The section Cold fusion#Events preceding announcement doesn't have to be in this article. The exact text is available here: Fleischmann-Pons_experiment#Events preceding announcement.
It extends slightly into the next section:
The section and the paragraph can just be removed without loosing anything. (feel free to do so if you have editing privilages) 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 22:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
note: Rather than follow my instructions, the spin out article has how been deleted by consensus. The spin out was considered duplicate content(!?), a pov fork(?!) and many other nonsensical motivations, this while non of my arguments have been addressed(?!) A consensus of invalid arguments is still a consensus of course. For now I will just accept that you cant read the edit guidelines when asked to. I may consider deletion review later but until I do the deletions proposed here should not be implemented. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 10:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cold_fusion&diff=595860863&oldid=595841265
I know this argument was really used to reject the Pons and Fleischmann replication results but our wording doesn't sound as sensible as it should. We fail to explain why a theoretical model would be necessary for the acceptance of experimental results.
The theoretical model was only relevant to the experimental results because so many results sit on the edge of the error margin. With a model there would be a vague effect, without a model the replication results look more like measurement errors.
Sticking with the correct scope is also important.
We currently have this:
I suggest this to be more accurate:
I prefer "existed" because after rejection publication of such theories had been refused. ( Julian Schwinger wrote no less than eight theoretical papers after the rejection) There is no need to attribute it to "the mainstream scientific community" because wikipedia doesn't do statements of facts without it. But if you want it inthere I have no objection. Something like:
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 10:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Science picks up where theology leaves off. When a theist or creationist says “and then a miracle happens,” as wittily portrayed in my favorite Sydney Harris cartoon of the two mathematicians at the chalkboard with the invocation tucked in the middle of a string of equations, I quote from the cartoon’s caption: “I think you need to be more explicit here in step two.”
— in Russell Blackford and Udo Schüklenk (eds.) 50 Voices of Disbelief : Why We Are Atheists Wiley-Blackwell (2009) ISBN 978-1-4051-9045-9
Without a testable hypothesis which withstands experimental testing, there is no science in the theory, just blind faith. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe most of them tagged by 5.15.183.49 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) are not "topics of current interest", and should be archived, manually, if necessary. If consensus can be obtained, I have an extension installed which allows me to click the "Archive" button on a thread, and it usually gets archived. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I see that those threads are concerned with aspects that should be mentioned in article and they have not been objected to inclusion, however they seem undecided and thus of current interest.-- 86.120.172.55 ( talk) 07:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
How have you assessed the support? By counting votes (3.5 Support to 2 Oppose)?-- 5.15.32.35 ( talk) 12:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that you make a change for the benefit of themselves and the poor science inventor. With the changes and can make wikipedia, monetary thank for these research Mount inventor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.127.155.170 ( talk) 18:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Ill mention some of the topics of current interest to be discussed.-- 5.15.35.32 ( talk) 14:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I found a RS that quotes Huizenga's assessment of Nernst equation in the context of analysing electrolysis. It doesn't find any problem with Huizenga's assessment: "The general message [of Huizenga's assessment] is clear: in using our pre-equilibrium arguments to establish Eq. (2.43), we must ensure that the pre-equilibrium is actually operative if the equation is to be meaningful. If large currents are being drawn, this may not be the case. Accordingly, the reader might note the need for caution in applying the analysis derived in Section 2.8. He/she might also wish to review the discussion of the Nernst equation in Chapter 1 of this book." Understanding Voltammetry pp. 56-57
The only other RS I can find is in German: Ebert K; Nachr. Chem. Tech. Lab. 37 (1989) 470 (in German). "Elektrochemisch induzierte Fusion von Deuterium" (Electrochemically induced fusion of deuterium). [16]. Dieter's summary is "(...) The article is not very critical, raising only a slight doubt as to the applicability of the Nernst equation to an overvoltage (the famous 0.8eV)"
-- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
What exactly is the excerpt from the Huot reference cited by Huizenga in his book?-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 12:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
text from archive by Brian Josephson which refers to the Hout reference in Huizenga's book:
I've now looked up the paper by Huot that Huizenga cites, and there seems to be a big gap between what he says and any assertion in the paper itself. If Huizenga thought there was some implication from the paper such as he asserts, he didn't go to any trouble to spell out his reasoning. The conclusion from all this would appear to be that Huizenga's assertion is overblown, and I suggest that instead of trying to summarise what people think about it as EN suggests that assertion simply be deleted from the article as having insufficient support.--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
end of text from archive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 14:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The excerpt is very important for enabling the understanding whether Huizenga's criticism is valid or not.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 11:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
This topic is closely connected to that of Types of models. A source for this can be the paper by Baim and Legget Phys Rev.-- 5.15.37.240 ( talk) 19:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
-- Brian Josephson ( talk) 09:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)... we agree with your implied position that one should keep an open mind about phenomena (including at least some of those usually regarded as "para-normal") which while not clearly violating the basic laws of physics as we know them do not have any obvious explanation within these laws. In such cases the ultimate arbiter is experiment.
Considering the aspects from the previous section regarding the discrimination of mechanisms by experiments which are the ultimate arbiter the question of how experiments should be designed to allow gathering of useful data for understanding and discerning the mechanisms appears stringent.-- 5.15.53.36 ( talk) 17:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The designed experiments must be (due to the issue of reproducibility) statistically analyzed. An example of (citable) statistical analysis is given by AIP source.-- 5.15.53.36 ( talk) 17:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
An appropiate source for this topic would the paper by Chechin and Tsarev from International Journal of Theoretical Physics.-- 5.15.37.240 ( talk) 19:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
New Publication on the website of the Board of Education and Science http://snto.ru/feedbacks?cid=8&item=56 New publication "Results " http://www.itogi.ru/paradox/2013/35/193536.html Hello could you mene help promote technology and can my film about cold fusion technology will help in prodvezhenii . Are you concerned about Rasulov Alexey, for what reason . I spoke at an international congress in 2010 http://www.physical-congress.spb.ru/2 ... on the issue of cold fusion . Now published an article about cold fusion is in the WAC in the journal "Energetic" publication in May 2013 http://www.energetik.energy-journals.ru/content/2013/5-2013/. Could you assist me in advancing technology , to show interest in this technology , it's the same technology as nuclear fusion , ie project " ITER " , please give a note that a competitor tokamaks. here's another article in the papers on this topic for each other Kursk http://www.dddkursk.ru/number/895/pla ..., and red star http://www.redstar.ru/2012/01/21_01/ 3 .... As there is a publication in the Journal of the inventor and innovator in May article called lightning to nuclear power plants. Recycled paper for analysis attached. Also have a group on the website of the Russian nuclear community http://www.atomic-energy.ru/papers/24062. Waiting for a reply by email. My phone 89508760167 . Address Kursk, Kursk region , village Vorontsov , 68 305 501 Index . Sincerely Rasulov AV
109.127.181.110 ( talk) 23:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
JzG - - I assume that you will be here in person rather than in 'bot', since you have been forewarned on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (→Cold Fusion: new section)
"There's some talk page activity suggesting a resumption of the long term POV-push, and our favourite Nobelist is there too. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)"
You (JzG) eliminated a sentence "In 2007 they established their own peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. [6] " based on its link to a "not reliable secondary source" (your claim). If there were a link to a commercial advertisement in the NYT about the JCMNS, instead of the ISCMNS link, would that be acceptable to you?
You are wrong on several counts that betray both your POV or carelessness. Assuming that cold fusion is "fringe" today (with over 4,000,000 hits on Google) and stating that a peer-reviewed journal (JCMNS) is "not reliable" is purely POV (yours or that of those you are supporting). Stating that the link is to the journal rather than to an organization's website (ISCMNS, a reliable secondary source for this purpose) is carelessness. Deleting important material, which had been discussed previously, with only a cryptic and invalid comment is not appropriate: 4 April 2014 JzG ... (they created a journal, source: link to the journal. Which is not a reliable secondary source.)
I went through the anti-fringe argument 1.5 years ago in this talk area and no one could come up with a valid reason for maintaining CF as a fringe topic. The topic could be considered "WP:controversial"; but, despite the major effort of the anti-CF group to keep documentation of mainstream research and publication out of the article, considering it to be fringe is untenable. It is only the unwillingness of that group to allow sufficient post-2000 publications to remain in the article that they can convince themselves (and certain administrators) to maintain the charade of their fringe argument. Aqm2241 ( talk) 17:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Who are the authors of this recent mentioned book? This labeling "example of institutionalized fringe science" is just rant.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 11:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
New Publication on the website of the Board of Education and Science http://snto.ru/feedbacks?cid=8&item=56 New publication "Results " http://www.itogi.ru/paradox/2013/35/193536.html Hello could you mene help promote technology and can my film about cold fusion technology will help in prodvezhenii . Are you concerned about Rasulov Alexey, for what reason . I spoke at an international congress in 2010 http://www.physical-congress.spb.ru/2 ... on the issue of cold fusion . Now published an article about cold fusion is in the WAC in the journal "Energetic" publication in May 2013 http://www.energetik.energy-journals.ru/content/2013/5-2013/. Could you assist me in advancing technology , to show interest in this technology , it's the same technology as nuclear fusion , ie project " ITER " , please give a note that a competitor tokamaks. here's another article in the papers on this topic for each other Kursk http://www.dddkursk.ru/number/895/pla ..., and red star http://www.redstar.ru/2012/01/21_01/ 3 .... As there is a publication in the Journal of the inventor and innovator in May article called lightning to nuclear power plants. Recycled paper for analysis attached. Also have a group on the website of the Russian nuclear community http://www.atomic-energy.ru/papers/24062. Waiting for a reply by email. My phone 89508760167 . Address Kursk, Kursk region , village Vorontsov , 68 305 501 Index . Sincerely Rasulov AV
109.127.181.110 ( talk) 23:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems that some users are making unfounded allusions of semi-protection of this talk page.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 10:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I notice on this page and from its history that attempts of obstructive ending of valid discussions by tendentious archiving and other means by some users (JzG, Binksternet, etc). This is an example of unacceptable behaviour.-- 193.254.231.34 ( talk) 10:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I see that it has been suggesting that edits should be commented, not behaviour. A recent edit like that of McSly of trying prevent legitimate comments is unaceptable.-- 82.137.14.162 ( talk) 18:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum. This page is for actionable proposals regarding improvements to the article, see WP:TPG. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Objections to someone's edits should not be hidden.-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 06:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I see that there some aspects concerning the (re)use of the archive have been discussed here. I consider that some archived sections such as Edit requests can be reused adding subsections with date of request.
I also notice that there are some users who remove other editors comments or objections to their edits, objections that should not be removed.-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 06:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I explained above the reuse of archive to add subsections when when a user (McSly) interrupts my subsections I was about to add.-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 22:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
His interruption of my intended additions cause disruption to the flow of writing aspects to include in article and are not to be accepted.-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 22:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I notice this very interesting feature of closure of some subsection by JzG (see above at topic of current interest). He has no right of closure for unsettled topics just based on his personal opinion. His abusive closure will be undone.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 11:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The section will be restored. No one has the right to archive aspects whose inclusion needs to be discussed.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 12:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Edits appear above from IP addresses 109.127.181.110 and 109.127.155.170 both with the same ADSL provider in Kursk. If they are for one person, would you please consider registering an account? Registration is free and actually improves your privacy. It is quite difficult to hold a real discussion with someone whose name and address keeps changing. Details are at wp:WHYREGISTER. If you prefer, you can register on the Russian-language Wikipedia, as accounts carry across between languages. Thank you. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Nehotela you Zalata fee izibretatelyu grief, and then here in Russia small fees or none at all, you can publish material after talks addressed alexras.82 @ mail.ru Rasulov A.V. Posmotrimte movie about cold fusion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGrTWCcsYk8 In this article, you can take anything you publish yourself, http://www.physical-congress.spb.ru/download/cong10% 2803% 29.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexras82 ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I also notice a suggestion by Enric Naval that is not complying with all guidelines, that technical content should be managed without understanding of topics edited. Insistance of editing certain topics with undestanding them is becoming disruptive and vandalism.-- 193.254.231.34 ( talk) 10:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |}
The analysis of the second DOE report should be more detailed in the article.-- 188.27.144.144 ( talk) 16:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the best proposal in this case is adding some details from the mentioned available sources like the report proper and Choi and Feder. Especially the paragraph 4 from Feder is interesting to cite.-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 21:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Not relevant to the article |
---|
The editing of this talk page is disruptive and involves talk page edit warring. There have been too many allegations of disruptive editing of this talk page, which are themselves disruptive. There has been a silly edit war as to whether to insert or remove a list of publications. There is no reason given for removing the material. Personal attacks, trolling, or disruptive material may be removed, but there is no need to remove a list of questionable publications. Stop edit warring.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
00:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
There are statements being made by unregistered editors that cold fusion is no longer considered fringe science. Those statements are simply contrary to scientific consensus. If the unregistered editors are here to make the case that cold fusion is no longer considered fringe science, they are wasting electrons. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
|
The template at the top of this talk page referring to sanctions linked to the wrong ArbCom case, which had to do with climate change. I have changed it to link to /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience, because cold fusion is considered by the mainstream scientific community to be fringe science or pseudoscience as usually defined. There was also an ArbCom case entitled Cold Fusion, but it was decided after Pseudoscience and resulted in a few editors being topic-banned. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Pretending something is pseudoscience while it is not is a great example of unacceptable behavior. 84.107.128.52 ( talk) 07:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
FYI - those who want to, you might consider including:
Y. Liu, R. Rousseau, "Towards a representation...", Information Processing and Management, 48, (2012), 791
as a ref to the mainstream rejection of CF. Quotes:
"These are clear indications that the theory of cold fusion is not accepted." - Section 9. "The Fleischmann-Pons article provides a case of an immediate explosion of attention, soon followed by the rejection of the ideas proposed in it." - Conclusions Kirk shanahan ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Not relevant to the article |
---|
I have been told that disruptive editing of talk pages for articles that are subject to
discretionary sanctions is subject to discretionary sanctions. The posting of walls of text to this talk page is disruptive editing. If the reason that the unregistered editors are here is to get this article rewritten to state that
cold fusion is considered science rather than
fringe science, then they are wasting electrons. Any further disruptive posts will be reported to
arbitration enforcement, and possibly to
sockpuppet investigations.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
19:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
|
E-cat, like many other cold fusion claims before it, seems like a flash in the pan publicity stunt. I suggest removing mention of it from this article per WP:ONEWAY. jps ( talk) 12:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I would like to add this:
A review of the subject by Storms in 2010 suggests that the reactions do not occur uniformly throughout the electrode but rather in small sites referred to as ‘Nuclear Active Sites’, the exact nature of which is not well understood. “Because the number of these sites is variable, many failures are experienced when no active sites are present… Often, failed replication results when important nano-structures are not present, conditions that are very difficult to reproduce reliably.”
to the bottom of the section on 'Reproducibility', anyone have a problem with this? source is: Storms, Edmund, "Status of Cold Fusion (2010)," Naturwissenschaften, 97:861–881, (2010) [ [18]] Insertcleverphrasehere ( talk) 20:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The Storms review is only a reliable source for what cold fusion proponents believe and does not qualify as the highest quality source we would use for an evaluation of a subject by WP:FRIND. Note that the text you are advocating is basically a rehash of Storms particular idea that the lack of reproducibility is due to a phenomenon he, as far as I can tell, invented out of whole cloth and is advocated by no one but himself. That there has been no critical review of his claims is simply a side effect of the research into cold fusion being marginalized, but 1) as there was obviously no critical review in place for that article, 2) Naturwissenchaften certainly did not choose a critical reviewer for the article, and 3) the whole point of putting storms on the board was so that he could handle submissions of cold fusion papers and similar subjects to the journal, it's obvious to me that we have a situation where the journal was basically allowing cold fusion promotion to be published unencumbered by critical review. That's not uncommon for medium to low impact journals. I can point to a number of journals which have done the same thing over the years from time to time in a lot of different areas. The idea is that if you relax your review standards you can get more papers published and perhaps increase the standing of the journal. This technique, however, tends to backfire after others notice the pattern. I see that Storms is no longer listed on the editorial board of Naturwissenchaften, for example. I wonder if they decided that this experiment was not in their own best interest. Well, this is speculation, but it is important to go through when evaluating whether sources are reliable for the approaches desired. In this case, I am pretty convinced that this is not a reliable source for anything but Storms' opinions, and you haven't made a convincing case that Storms' opinions should be included in this article. jps ( talk) 12:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems clear to everyone that YES the only reason he could get this review published was because he was put on the review board which in my mind is sad. That the scientific community won't allow any discussion on a topic that has changed quite a lot in the past 20 years. I will note that the citation count is probably pretty irrelevant, as most CF papers aren't actually listed in google scholar. I'm going to give up now as I'm sick of arguing and its making me feel frustrated and i feel this has gone on long enough. Anyone who 'supports' CF even tentatively or sceptically has abandoned these wikipedia articles because of the difficulty of citing anything and don't blame them. I don't blame you guys either you are just following the rules.
I want to ask a question though. What if this wikipedia article is affecting the 'consensus' or overall viewpoint of CF? Wikipedia has grown beyond being a simple encyclopaedia, due in no small part to great contributors such as yourselves. When people want an answer to a question, such as "is there anything to this cold fusion thing that I've heard about?" where is the first place they look? My guess, 90% of the time it is this article. (I wonder if there is a way to check via google records). With that sort of thing happening there isn't much chance of a change without some massive irrefutable event. I am not saying that anything can be done, it is just something to think about. Does wikipedia's stance on Fringe articles affect the entire evolution of that fringe environment given wikipedia's high status? Insertcleverphrasehere ( talk) 06:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I propose that, if anyone wants changes to the article, we should first get Wikipedia consensus via a Request for Comments. The first question that I plan to include in the RFC is whether cold fusion is considered by most of the academic community to be pathological science. The second question is which of the four categories of questionable science, as defined by the ArbCom, cold fusion belongs to. The four categories are: first, areas that are universally considered to be pseudoscience; second, areas that are generally considered to be pseudoscience, but that have a following, such as astrology; third, areas that are widely accepted as valid, but are considered by some to be pseudoscience, such as psychoanalysis; and, fourth, alternative scientific formulations. Does anyone want to add any other questions to the RFC? Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
See WP:ARBPS, principles 15 through 18, for the four categories. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I would first like to point out a flaw in the coverage of this article, which I'm sure has been pointed out in full before now, however I will bring it up again and expect a reasoned and reasonable response from level headed wikipedia seniors and not a reactionary response involving name calling and abuse as has occurred on this talk page previously. I also fully admit that I am not a regular wikipedia contributor, but am a scientist (an academic Engineering Geologist and Biologist).
Regarding the current war on this article because of a POV issue regarding a sliding scale with 'believers' on one side and 'blind rejecters' on the other separated by a healthy amount of middle ground people as well, I respect those that have the viewpoint that Wikipedia should only support reliable sources and enforce that policy.
However it should be noted that there is a group of researchers actively researching cold fusion claims. As most users who frequent this talk page well know. These scientists, despite a wish to do so, and a strict adherence to scientific method, regardless of whether their paper supports or does not support the subject cannot be accepted by peer reviewed mainstream journals or by the patent process. This results in an unfair situation in which those wishing to investigate the field within the realm of scientific endeavour will be unable to publish regardless of the outcome of their experiment, this is unscientific (the previous sentence is original research, but is included for context). This has resulted in this entire field writing articles and publishing them in journals that are reviewed only by other CF scientists or by self publishing without peer review, this is a damn shame but unavoidable given the wider scientific consensus.
QUESTION: Does this mean that we are categorically not allowed to post information form these articles?
From what I have read regarding fringe policy on wikipedia... it appears not, see the following comment:
Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
This indicates that these sources may be included, so long as it is noted that the views are those of the group of researchers from that journal and not of the wider scientific community.
1. The above sentence seems to indicate that a lot of information that has been gathered by researchers in non peer reviewed journals that has perviously been denied access to the article by that (unavoidable) status should be included in this article, under a heading of 'non peer reviewed material' of course.
2. While I realise that the Scientific Community is of the consensus that CF is not real, I also note that this article is NOT a science article, its is a FRINGE article. Therefore under different rules regarding the inclusion of non peer reviewed journal articles. It appears to me that this policy has not been followed, given the apparent removal of nearly all information in the article not directly opposing cold fusion or else related to the original 1989 experiments and immediate aftermath (as opposed to what I remember about the article state 1 year ago, widom-larsden theory info comes to mind, and I would be curious to know why it was removed.)
3. Within the article, few references to the ongoing work in this community is mentioned, and where mentioned the comments seem to be always cited from a highly derisive point of view from some mainstream source, rather than any citation from a primary source (which of course would be non peer reviewed due to peer reviewed journal policy).
possible solution: I suggest that following the guideline above from Wikipedia:Fringe more primary sources from non-peer reviewed JOURNAL articles be included in a new section entitled 'Ongoing Fringe Research' or something similar. Always of course form the point of view or noting that this research is the views of the group represented by that journal and not of the wider scientific community.
NOTE: caution must be taken, as 'believers' may attempt to use any change in policy to insert quite a lot of unreliable stuff, HOWEVER, this should be balanced against the outright rejection of all sources by 'blind rejecters' which is also unacceptable. (note that the two terms used in the previous sentence are my own personal opinion and should not be construed as derision of a wikipedia user's personal character, rather they are labels based on my own scientific belief in impartiality and the weighing of all information regardless of source based on its own merits and credibility)
as stated above I would like some responses from moderators regarding these interpretations and consider any comments mocking my personal character to by highly unacceptable. Insertcleverphrasehere ( talk) 06:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Seeing this discussion I have to underline in this context that the article mentions some (cluster of) peer reviewed journals. Articles from the mentioned journals could be used to add further content details. These are reputable journals.-- 94.53.199.249 ( talk) 07:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |separator=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |separator=
ignored (
help)