Talk:Cold fusion

This article was the subject of mediation during 2009 at User_talk:Cryptic C62/Cold fusion.

The Francesco Celani experiment needs some attention in this article.

Recent improvements to contained nickel hydrogen reactors : http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2012/08/08/francesco-celani-demos-his-lenr-device-publicly/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2qWgh7Gx4g

I'm sure someone who is an English speaker can do a better job about it than me.

Regards P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.79.82 (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

We have FIVE recent articles relating to Cold Fusion and/or LENR and its possible move towards commercialization (I list them in order of the events they are describing, rather than the date of publication):

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box

Featherstone, S., Can Andrea Rossi’s Infinite-Energy Black Box Power The World–Or Just Scam It?, in Popular Science. 2012. This describes a visit with Rossi, and another with Celani and with skeptics such as Bardi.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion

Hambling, D., Cold fusion: smoke and mirrors, or raising a head of steam?, in wired.co.uk. 2012, which covers Rossi’s recent claims, ICCF17, Celani’s recent claims and demonstrations, Toyota, Brillouin Energy

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2012/08/08/new-burst-of-energy-could-bring-cold-fusion-to-front-burner

New Burst of Energy Could Bring Cold Fusion to Front Burner

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/10/20/cold-fusion-gets-a-little-more-real/

Gibbs, M., Cold Fusion Gets a Little More Real [Updated], in Forbes. 2012. A report on the visit to Defkalion by M. Nelson of NASA. Nelson’s visit was supposed to be confidential, but it was revealed in leaked documents discussed in this article, and also by eCat News, “Defkalion Self-Leaks Catalyst.”

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/nov/27-big-idea-bring-back-the-cold-fusion-dream

Anderson, M., Big Idea: Bring Back the “Cold Fusion” Dream, in Discover Magazine. 2012. This is about the Widom-Larsen theory.

But IRWolfie insists that : "You are kidding if you think a wired article meets WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Get me a paper in Nature or Science." (The EXCEPTIONAL relates to papers and reports that Excess heat can be produced reliably, can be turned on and off on demand, is approaching commercial levels of power etc) Alanf777 (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Alanf777 (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The sources provided are not reporting "that Excess heat can be produced reliably...turned on and off on demand...approaching commercial levels of power etc". They are reporting on the some old claims made by the usual suspects. Nothing new (and M. Nelson does not represent NASA). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Still more third-rate sources. Bring real, independent experts writing secondary sources. Otherwise, we're not ready to throw out the standard model just yet.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree, just the same old stuff. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it interesting that a 14 year old Wired article is an acceptable reference, as long as it is not pro CF (Platt, Charles, 1998, "What if Cold Fusion is Real?", Wired Magazine (6.11), retrieved 2008-05-25). However, the magazine is 'not allowed' when it is pro CF.

1. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/rossi-roundup

2. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion

3. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/28/cold-fusion

4. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/06/e-cat-cold-fusion

5. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/29/rossi-success

This whole thing is bogus. The WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim pertains to the discovery of CF itself, not to the reporting of news events. Wired is a legitimate public magazine of technical import. Certainly, better informed in its recent articles than a note in a 2-decade-old book. Yet to counter new information, the anti-CF WIKI Lawyers find a 3rd edition textbook that pans CF with a story that goes back to the original 1993 edition (Chemistry Principles and Practice by Daniel L. Reger, 2009). Voila! they have fresh evidence from an authoritative source that CF is dead. "The fight against a pseudo science is still active." Desperate times my friends!

The idea that CF is 'WP:FRINGE' must also be dropped. CF is clearly active in the news and has a significant research group providing technical expertise and peer review. Ignoring contemporary news sources such as Wired, US New and World Report, and Forbes, is pure hypocrisy. Just as Wikipedia should not tolerate "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories," neither should it tolerate "unwarranted denigration of fringe, or any, theories." The offensive suppression of modern secondary and tertiary sources, in an attempt to maintain the fiction of CF being 'fringe science', is unconscionable. Provide as much valid, up-to-date, anti-CF information as you wish, just do not block legitimate news on the subject. If you cannot be neutral and fair, please 'be gone.'

This article is not on Fusion. The CF field does not say that hot fusion is wrong. That would be an 'extraordinary' claim. It presents data that cannot be explained by contemporary physics. It will suggest that there are areas that contemporary physics does not yet accept. The extraordinary claim is from nuclear physics that might say these observed data are wrong and that present physics is complete and correct. Such claims would fit under the 'fringe science' banner and should require extraordinary documentation. The claims on non-reproducibility are ancient history. To deny presentation of the published reports and public demonstrations of the ability to reproducibly turn the effect on and off is based on an extraordinary claim and is an act of pure hubris. We all know where the 'fringe' is. Aqm2241 (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Reports of "cold fusion" may be notable. It is false to say that "claims (of) non-reproducibiity" are unjustified, or, to be precise about what is relevant here, said to be unjustified in reliable sources. As for Wired, as noted in the talk page of the EC article, the Wired articles on Rossi were reporting the facts (that Rossi claimed to produce energy, but no independent observers have confirmed it, and no observers have confirmed that the equipment didn't draw enough power to produce the reported energy production.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that people are deliberately 'missing' the point. CF is no longer fringe. Even if it were to be 'wrong', it is no longer fringe. You are maintaining a label that no longer applies. In terms of reliable sources most of the anti-CF references are no longer reliable or even relevant (other than historically) as per the Wiki definition of reliable.

″Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.″

Is anyone able to provide a 'reliable' source to support the pre-2000 publications that are the only references that the anti-CF group is able to come up with? Since the claim is that Forbes, Wired, and US News&World Report are not reliable, it seems that, per definition, Science and Nature are the only references 'allowed'. Would someone care to justify that? References to Impact Factor journals (refereed) have been removed from this article because they had pro-CF information. Such action appears to automatically discount them from the list of reliable sources (until they produce anti-CF comments that are then notable and quotable). If we define CF as non-'fringe' then much of the anti-CF actions are unarguably POV and must be discounted. Would someone care to raise the issue to 'prove' CF to be fringe science today?Aqm2241 (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You've got that backwards, WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims such as yours require exceptional evidence. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Aqm2241 said, "Is anyone able to provide a 'reliable' source to support the pre-2000 publications that are the only references that the anti-CF group is able to come up with?" The current article reference numbers 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 all point to post-2000 articles which support the conclusion that cold fusion is still considered fringe. Olorinish (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Wolfie, you and Olorinish are out of date. You have made, and are trying to maintain, the exceptional claim that CF is 'fringe'. Please support that exceptional claim with exceptional evidence from this century. Olorinish has tried to do this and claims references 7-11 meet this criterion. I note and respond.

Ref 7 (1993 - 2010)- A quick read of the 2007 sub-ref (online, Chemistry World) finds a single negative comment based on a quote from an "avowed critic" Frank Close, a retired particle physicist of the University of Oxford, UK. Basically, it is an article about CF coming out of the closet. The 2010 online article (www.slate.com), while basically negative, gives a scientific reason for why CF is interesting. It definitely does not support the 'CF is fringe' POV.

Ref 8 (New York Times, 2004)- basically a positive announcement of upcoming DOE review. New results presented and quick review of 'old' criticism. No new criticism.

Ref 9 (2011) http://science.howstuffworks.com/starships-use-cold-fusion-propulsion.htm The single statement supporting the anti-CF contingent is "Prevailing scientific opinion is still that the vast majority of cold fusion research falls under the rubric of 'pathological science'..." The next most damning statement is definitely not putting a 'fringe' on CF - "... So, while physicists are willing to concede there might be something of marginal interest going on, most remain unconvinced that this is bona fide cold fusion. Hardly anyone holds out any hope of it becoming a viable energy source in the foreseeable future." http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/cocktail_party_physics/2007/08/genie-in-a-bott.html

Ref 10 (2005) essentially says that results of the 2nd DOE review was not that different from the 1st.

Ref 11 (http://discovermagazine.com, 2006; Chemistry World 2007 = ref 7; Wired, 2009;) Negative statements are taken from net-neutral articles.

Of Olorinish's 5 21st-Century references, only Ref.9 is non-net-neutral, or even positive. None of the others would indicate CF as fringe science. All have both positive and negative statements (mostly historical). However, if I were to try to use one of the positive statements or quotations from any of the references, they would be discounted. For example, in Ref 8 (NY Times, 2004), the statement "Still, Dr. Hagelstein added, I definitely think it has potential for commercial energy production." would not be allowed in this article.

Ref.9, the only negative reference, is in an online 'howstuffworks' article. This is exceptional 'evidence'? Nevertheless, the author, in an earlier article in 'Cocktail Physics' showed that she was a well-read critic and I would welcome her comments and opinion.

Please guys, you can do better than that. If you can't, then you should concede that CF is not 'fringe' and you should treat it with respect, not your derision. That respect includes permitting more 21st Century 'news' and research to be included in the article.Aqm2241 (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is crazy. What you need is a reliable source which explicitly states it is not fringe. None has so far been provided. The NASA energy survey essentially said that, even if it might work, it is improbable that a working prototype could be created in 30 years, but it still may be worth studying. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, you are right, this is crazy. Can you find a reliable source saying that hot fusion is "not" fringe? You cannot find a reliable source in this decade to say that CF is crazy. You are attempting to argue that the anti-CF group is a 'reliable' source and no one else is. You are not going to change with the available data; but to not allow it to be presented in the Wiki article, by claiming all such sources are not reliable, is to maintain what might once have been a valid stance in the face of too much real evidence. If the CF article were started today, the term 'fringe' would be laughed about. There is no longer any excuse to consider it as such. Just because you don't yet believe it does not make it fringe.

Any time, I would produce a source saying that CF is reproducibly capable of producing more energy than is put in, you would say it is a primary source, is POV, or is not a reliable source. Nevertheless, you would be able to use the same pro-CF source as acceptable to say that "last century, CF was considered by science to be fringe." Your POV allows you to say that CF is still fringe, based on that 'recent' claim. In the very references used to make recent anti-CF claims there will be statements that CF will be commercial within the decade. That certainly does not seem fringe to me. Aqm2241 (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"impossible" is a statement of fact about physical reality, "fringe" is a sociological description of the perception by certain social groups. Replacing that word alters the quote into a new text that didn't come from any reliable source.

Cold fusion#Conferences details the ACS and APS sessions in annual meetings, the organizers even explain their reasons. None of the reasons has anything to see with increased acceptance of CF among scientists. That's why it's not in the lead. I tried to compile sources that linked increased acceptance of CF to the creation of these sessions, but they all had caveats.

I just checked for new sources.[1] Turns out that any ACS member can make a talk without any peer review, there are talks about perpetual motion and similar.[2] (You can find Jed Rothwell in the comments section, the blog is written by James Riordon, he is listed as journalist and "Head of Media Relations" in the APS Physics Press Room [3])

For the 2009 meeting. BBC suggests that ACS organizes the meetings because "the field would otherwise have no suitable forum for debate."[4]. Now that's something that could be quoted.

For the 2010 meeting. There is an ACS press release[5] that has a lot of positive statements, but they are all quotes from Jan Marwan, the organizer of the cold fusion symposium and owner of a company that researches CF among other things[6]. phys.org also warns that it's quoting Marwan "That's the conclusion of the organizer of one of the largest scientific sessions on the topic (...)" [7] The only neutral-voice statement is from frigging Popular Science[8]

Caveats, statements from people who have a conflict of interest, regurgitation of self-congratulating press releases, optimist headlines that sell newspapers and are toned down in the body of the text, catchy headlines like "cold fusion is hot again" that get repeated every couple of years .... those are the problems I encounter.

A freelance reporter in a 2010 Nature blog describes how the ACS sessions have become less "hidden" and have gained more attendees [9]. I think that this is the nearest I have come to a reliable source. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a Nature article about the reaction to the first session in 2007 "After an 18-year hiatus, the American Chemical Society (ACS) seems to be warming to cold fusion. (...) Some say the move shows that researchers are re-opening their eyes to work in this field. Others maintain that there is still no evidence for cold fusion and see the session only as a curiosity."[10]

(With apologies for the interpolation disconnecting the comment of 27 October.) You haven't produced a source which (a) isn't clearly fringe and (b) states something other than "it is reported that CF is reproducibly capable ..." or occassionaly "a machine claimed to be CF is claimed reproducibly produces....". I've read some of the references you've supplied. The best of them states something like if CF works, it might be commercially feasible within 30 years. (And Wired probably is not reliable in regard CF; both in their denial last century and their apparently credulous review recently. They aren't CF experts or fraud experts, or a general news agency; one of the first would be required for them to be independently reliable as experts, and the the latter would be required for an article outside their field of expertise to be considered reliable.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Arthur, have you stopped beating your wife? There is no non-negative answer to the question, because the question is flawed. Your requirement to 'prove' CF is non-fringe on your terms is equally flawed. Since those terms define any expert in the field to be fringe, there is no acceptable support for CF. All reports that are positive are rejected as being by non-experts. The fact that no negative-CF reports have ever been written by experts seems to have escaped your notice (Shanahan might be an exception). Since expert testimony is not acceptable, you next eliminated all publications that have non-negative CF comments as 'not notable.' You argue against Wired, even tho you can use negative-CF comments from it. You eliminate all non-US sources as non-notable. Science and Nature seem to be acceptable (because they have shown a clear history of anti-CF bias). Would you care to identify the 'line'. The article in Forbes makes some strong statements. I quote:

"On October 18, Defkalion published two documents: An executive summary and an extensive report of tests of their system. ... This is potentially huge! An independent witness asserting that the system may be outputting three times the input energy! The question was, who was the independent witness? ... the executive summary was written by Michael A. Nelson, a NASA employee of some thirty years standing."

The Forbes 'contributor' interviewed Nelson so that he was not just referring to a 'fringe' report. Oh! I forgot, the Wiki anti-CF crowd does not allow NASA's involvement in LENR (2 patents applied for) to be mentioned.

How would Science or Nature report on such an event, even if they did not have an anti-CF editorial stance? How does Forbes stand up in your list of notable references? It would certainly be acceptable, if I were to extract an anti-CF comment from the same article. Under your conditions, anti-CF does not require 'exceptional'; pro-CF does. And, the anti-CF crowd gets to chose what is exceptional.

It seems to me that the anti-CF folk are playing a 'mind-control' game and using it as a form of censorship. It's time to grow up kids!Aqm2241 (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that we could compile a list of recent sources, from 2011 and first half of 2012, saying that CF is fringe or unfounded or a chimera or a false claim or an unfulfilled dream or wishful thinking or not replicated or that proponents of the theory have crossed the line from unreason to reason or disproved or the erroneous product of incompetent experimenters or hidden from mainstream science. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you can do that, why are all of the post-2000 anti-CF references in the article referring to pre-2000 statements? Why, if CF is fringe, can you get nearly 6 Million hits on Google for a search on "cold fusion"? The only thing 'fringe' about CF today is the anti-CF crowd's claim that it is. If they drop the claim, then all of the 'ordinary' pro-CF publications with actual data, which they have suppressed - claiming "fringe requires exceptional" - become valid references. Welcome to the 21st Century. Aqm2241 (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Errr, there are multiple post-2000 refs that use post-2000 information? And they say that CF is fringe? How about DOE 2004? Feder 2005? Adam 2005? Labinger 2005? Choi 2005? Brumfiel 2005? Kenan 2010?

Sanderson 2007 even says that the ACS meetings could represent a small improvement in attitude towards CF. But it's packed with "some say" and stuff like "But most are for the moment skeptical that low-energy nuclear reactions are the way forward." or "Miles is also careful to avoid using the words 'cold fusion'. 'There are code names you can use,' he says. In 2004 Miles and colleagues were granted a US patent for a palladium material doped with boron for use in low-energy nuclear reactions, but if the patent application contained the CF words it would never have been granted, Miles says. 'We kind of disguised what we did.'"

And Wired has a few articles that we are not using. "The E-Cat is the latest incarnation of cold fusion, an area long shunned by respectable scientists." Wired 2011, "This technology, also known as Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR), had been consigned to the deepest cellar of fringe science. Now it's hammering on the cellar door, and Nasa, MIT, Darpa and Cern are among those peering through the keyhole, wondering if it should be allowed back in with respectable science."Wired 2012

--Enric Naval (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Enric, A sampling of your choice of 'most recent' references makes my point very clearly. The anti-CFers pick statements from the 'history' of the CF controversy in an article and ignore the conclusion of the argument that the authors are trying to make. For example, the anti-CFers, to benefit from his 2010 date, quote from a description of CF's past history in Kean's 2010 article in Slate. But they then conveniently ignore his punch-line that he was building to:

"... And now, a generation later, the idea of cold fusion has taken hold in people's imaginations once again. The American Chemical Society, the world's largest professional organization of scientists, sponsored multiple sessions on cold fusion at their annual meeting last spring. This drew predictable jeers from the few mainstream scientists still bothering to debunk claims for cold fusion, but the number of such sessions has quadrupled since 2007."

This last sentence, mentioning the dramatic increase in mainline technical sessions and papers, blasts the main argument that the anti-CFers use to label CF as fringe. I doubt that quote would be allowed in the present article. Kean goes on to say:

"It's a mug's game in science to start declaring things impossible — there's no better way to make yourself look like an ass to posterity. ..." Change the word 'impossible' to 'fringe' and we see the problem with the editing in this Wiki article.

Your own quotation from the Wired article states the anti-fringe argument very well: "... (LENR), had been consigned to the deepest cellar of fringe science. Now it's hammering on the cellar door, and Nasa, MIT, Darpa and Cern are among those peering through the keyhole, wondering if it should be allowed back in with respectable science." Yet here is the 'evidence' that is used to try and maintain the image of 'fringe' for CF against the 6 million hits on Google alone and the fact that multiple research organizations are exploring and funding the topic.

Please reread the lead paragraphs in Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Undue_weight#Due_and_undue_weight , and consider the fact that "nuclear fusion" only has slightly more than 3 million Google hits. Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view . What are you trying to prove? Aqm2241 (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep this about adding the experiment mr Celani did to the main article. It was witnessed and inspected by quite a few people , mr Celani was also open and clear about what was done.

Regards P. 83.101.79.37 (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read and understand wp:REDFLAG. A gee-whiz-wouldn't-it-be-nifty-if-this-worked article in Popular Science or Wired is not anything like the exceptionally high quality source needed, it is their regular stock in trade. Also, please consider creating an account rather than hopping between various IP addresses. It improves your privacy while permitting other editors to have discussions with you.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Please understand I am not interested in making any accounts on wikipedia. I value the albeit quite limited amount of anonymity a countrywide pool of variable ip's grants me. And am quite content not having a private conversation with you sir. This talk page will do just fine. I'm quite certain that , if the Celani experiment has any value , bit by bit more credible sources will dare publish. In the meantime , this corner of wikipedia will be adequate for some preliminary discussions concerning it. Having said that , Anyone interested should take a look at this article concerning the Celani replication project. http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2012/10/06/celani-replication-project/ . I for one am hoping for some interesting conclusions from that replication , however limited the credibility and whichever direction results will point. 83.101.79.177 (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If you actually read those sources, they say that it would be wonderful if it turns out to be real. They also express doubts and problems with the product. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"If you actually read" .. You are trolling sir.. On a talk page on wiki . Get a life.83.101.79.67 (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, that didn't go out well, let me rephrase that. "If you read the sources in detail, looking for evaluations of the chances that Rossi's invention works and is ready to be commercialized". --Enric Naval (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Now that Cold Fusion is recognized as not 'fringe', it is time to stop treating it as such and actively put CF into the alternative theory category, thereby developing it into a proper article. Wiki's definition of the proper category (from [WP:FRINGE]):

4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. ...

To determine whether something falls into the category of pseudoscience or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature in order to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology ..., relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence ..., or indulges a suspect theoretical premise...

With almost 6 million hits on Google, cold fusion is notable. With hundreds of scientists (including Nobel Laureates in physics) having worked and published in the field, with a scientific journal devoted to the subject, with an annual international convention and several annual and biannual 'workshops' world-wide at which to report experimental and theoretical work in the subject, with hundreds of published reports of measurements of 'excess heat', nuclear radiation, and transmutation, and with world-wide public demonstrations of the effect, CF is clearly in the class of 'alternative' science, if not science, and not pseudoscience. As such, WP:REDFLAG no longer applies to the topic. Reports of experimental success and of new models to try and properly explain the phenomenon are now standard fare. The inexcusable deletion of scientific papers from this article must stop. A section devoted to the theories proposed to account for the subject and arguments for and against them would be appropriate and should be welcomed. There are even excellent pre-1995 reviews on that subject and a lot of new work is being published today. This reporting on active work is not undue emphasis. The undue emphasis on denigrating CF is the main problem with the article today.

For the record, I was present at and watched Celani's demonstration of excess heat generation in Korea last August, one week after the same successful demonstration in Texas. I watched the recording of temperature during the start-up and after the internal heater was turned off. I watched the temperature rise as the excess heat built up over several hours after the heater was turned off. I saw the record of the high temperatures maintained for several days, the temperature stability over 2 nights, and their minor fluctuations during the day, when people were around stirring up air currents that altered the heat flow to the outside world. As an experimental physicist with a PhD in Nuclear Physics and with experience in building up, utilizing, and directing a solar cell measurement and radiation effects lab for calibration and long-term environmental degradation studies, I have some credentials in the measurement area. I did not take apart the source (visible in, I believe, a Pyrex or quartz tube), but I did check that all of the leads were being monitored. Again, I did not test each piece of monitoring equipment, the connections and calibrations. I felt that the National Instruments (NI) technical support personnel that were there, actually running and monitoring the experiment, were more familiar with the particular equipment being used. They were showcasing their equipment while demonstrating the effect. They weren't going to allow any problem, with more that 100 scientists looking over their shoulder. This same demonstration could be moved to and operated in an office at USPTO. This may be planned; however, it would not be cost effective for NI to provide the support personnel for a small group of patent attorneys, clerks, and a couple of consultants. Unfortunately, without that support, the USPTO might 'break' some of the equipment during the obligatory post-demonstration inspection and then vitiate the test as not reproducible. Aqm2241 (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Just ask Celani to publish his findings in an actual peer-reviewed journal so that other independent scientists can replicate, or not, those findings and publish their results in a reputable journal. Real science is done under the harsh light of day. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming Conferences

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=520787073 LeadSongDog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (124,846 bytes) (-713)‎ . . (→‎Conferences: rm wp:CRYSTAL)

WP:CRYSTAL : Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.

Notable that Mainstream organisations are officially sponsoring CF-related conferences/sessions and almost certain to take place, since both are regularly recurring conferences. ICCF-18 -- American Nuclear Society -- I'm not sure how many they've had. Alanf777 (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a directory. We include content of encyclopedic value only. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You do understand that "Notable" is wikipedia shorthand for "we can verify that a reliable publication already took note of it"? The chair of a planned conference is clearly not an impartial, let alone peer-reviewed, reliable source on the significance or validity of any science being presented at the conference. This is especially so in advance of its presentation. His job at this point is to promote the event. But more to the point, it simply isn't encyclopedic material to include. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor datebook nor webhost, nor many other things. If however there are independent high-quality sources that can verify statements about the conference sessions, (I'm having some difficulty imagining this) we can look at what those sources have to say. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wolfie and LSD, would you not consider the official MIT website to be a reliable publication? Would not the information expressed on it (non-credit course listing and details to be taught) be more than just a listing of an event? Try: http://student.mit.edu/searchiap/iap-BD6D0CF8E170B284E0400312852F4A61.html Aqm2241 (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope. We discussed this last year, see that talk archive. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That was when you guys were still able to maintain the CF was fringe science. That is no longer a tenable position and the 'rules' change. Time to come up to speed. Aqm2241 (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Superheavy element synthesis (Hofmann 2011)

Is the cold fusion of "Synthesis of superheavy elements by cold fusion" Radiochim. Acta 99, 405–428 the same as electrochemical cold fusion? AsysOmicron (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's not. It's done at low temperatures, but they are accelerating particles at very high velocities to achieve the energy necessary for the nuclear fusion. The byproducts and measured energies are those predicted by conventional nuclear fusion theories. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Word choice

The lead states "proposed" but we should probably say "hypothesized". Objections why not? --Hartz (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

"proposed" is relatively neutral. One could even say "theoretical" which is somewhat loaded in the opposite direction of "hypothesized". Keep as is. Alanf777 (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

My view is that if you propose, the technology is a finished blueprint and ready to be built. I would say that for example a wind turbine can be proposed – then it is soon built according to the blueprint. Also, you can propose a marriage, and that too includes that you have to be able to deliver. Wiktionary defines the word propose: "To suggest a plan or course of action." You cannot have a course of action if the blueprint is not there and the operation not demonstrated. You cannot propose to fetch a pizza if you don't have a car. Therefore the word proposed is wrong. Theoretical is also a wrong term because cold fusion has nothing to do with a theory. --Hartz (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The right word might be hypothetical. --Hartz (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The right word is to omit it entirely. The sentence stands on its own without it.

Cold fusion is a type of nuclear reaction that would occur at ...

ps : google

propose (relativity OR "big bang" OR "string theory" )

and you get 3 million (estimated) results Alanf777 (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"Proposed" seems the best of a bad lot. "Unconfirmed" seems supported by the actual sources. "Theoretical" and "hypothetical" don't seem to match the sources, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem starts with "Cold fusion is", when most editors contend we should accept that "Cold fusion is not". The compromise position lies somewhere around "Cold fusion would be". LeadSongDog come howl! 14:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Mitsubishi replicates Toyota LENR experiment and CERN looking into LENR

http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/CERN-Could-be-About-to-Start-Researching-LENR-Following-Recent-Colloquium.html http://ecatnews.com/?p=2179 The pathoskeptics here are ruining Wiki as a reliable source. These guys will be denying LENR even while working in a bulding heated by it ten years from now. The verdict is in but Einsteins on Wiki are still playing hide the mole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.70.120 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

More pseudo-reliable sources. "oilprice.com" is possible, but "... Could be" means it's speculation, and the "original article" at newenergyandfuel.com is not at all reliable unless the authors are experts who have published papers in reviewed reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

To quote the "about" page at newenergyandfuel.com: "The site’s mission is to inform, stimulate, amuse and abuse the news and views across the emerging field of energy and fuels in our future." (emphasis added.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Take it easy 198.91.70.120 ("pathoskeptics here")! By necessity, physicists dominate as editors in physics topics in Wikipedia, and from some physicist culture outside they've gotten a sceptic negativity culture, only to be balanced by physicist-sceptics on Wikipedia. There are bysantinized sciences today too, (no scientific development, everybody only defending their academic territory), but it is currently likely the bysantinization will be broken up. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That makes even less sense than 198.91.70.120's comments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)