Talk:Cold fusion: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 14:31, 22 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cold fusion article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48: 180 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Cold fusion. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Cold fusion at the Reference desk.

Cold fusion is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2004.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 16, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
January 6, 2006	Featured article review	Demoted
June 3, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
June 7, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
July 19, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
December 26, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 28, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
November 23, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 23, 2012, March 23, 2014, March 23, 2017, March 23, 2019, and March 23, 2024.
Current status: Former featured article

‹See TfM›

Physics High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Mid‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Stephen Foley (3 February 2009). "So is Wikipedia cracking up?:It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Wikipedia is plagued by endless hoaxes, and lurches from one cash crisis to another. Will it become a footnote in the history of the web?". The Independent.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Mainstream?

An indication that cold fusion (aka LENR, low-energy nuclear reaction) is becoming mainstream?

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=125983 “Scientific Research: An Academic Publisher: Explanation of Cold Nuclear Fusion and Biotransmutations”, June 2023. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Scientific Research Publishing is predatory. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, i noticed that scirp.org was on the "Spam Blacklist", so i couldn't link to it; but i got around that by using "nowiki" to prevent the URL from being linked. I didn't know why the website was on the spam list. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wordy

The hatnote says, "This article is about the Fleischmann–Pons claims of nuclear fusion at room temperature, and subsequent research. For the original use of the term "cold fusion", see muon-catalyzed fusion. [...]" These first two sentences seem a bit wordy. How can we shorten them? Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they really can be shortened, nor do they need to be. Both of them are simple and direct sentences in the standard fashion for disambiguation notes. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting read and neutrality

While I personally don't believe cold fusion would work, I like that this article tries to be neutral on the subject instead of just being predatory like most other controversial articles. Its still not perfect but reading this article made me very angry at the mainstream scientific establishment for their behavior. I'm happy the article didn't accuse the field of being pseudoscience. I want more articles that try to be neutral like this one instead of editors vandalizing articles on here with their own political biases as a coping mechanism for their own personal life issues. Seriously, the fact that the rest of this site isn't as good as this article is proof that most of the top contributors to this site should've been permabanned years ago. And I have the right to say this as someone who's not an editor but has read thousands of articles on here.

One other point I should bring up: anything groundbreaking related to energy storage or generation would always be an issue of national security. Geopolitical instability, the formation of market bubbles and economic instability, and other side effects would make it logical to keep such technology secret and wait for intermediate technologies to soften the blow. For instance, you don't want the energy cells of science fiction to be dropped on society since every thief around would be sapping power from power lines using drones and wars would eventually start. So keep this in mind when you think about advanced technology. If something like cold fusion could work, it would be revealed after hot fusion became successful and more established. 50.81.18.120 (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You fell for snake oil and you don't even realize it, shame! 2601:281:D881:7F10:8B4:48D0:3A87:9A95 (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]