Talk:Stanley Pons

File:Pons7.gif

Stanley Pons profile photo

Old thread

I've replaced this image with the full field of the canonical image, showing the piece of cold-fusion apparatus that Pons was holding up. While it may be possible to find another photo of the man, this is the famous photo of Pons (with Fleischmann; see his bio) during the year that their work was feted and promoted around the world. +sj+

Nationality in the lead

I reverted back to Pons being of French nationality per WP:MOSBIO. If folks would like to go with American-born French... that could work as well. The article says that he gave up his US citizenship, so he is not of American nationality, correct? Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's right. And I'm OK with American-born French. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed it. I see alot of XYZ-born American whatevers, so I guess this is pay back :). Cheers, --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss on talk page

Please, discuss on talk page, instead of engaging in this back and forth disruptive editing: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

edit request

{{editprotected}}

Change this After the claims were found to be unreproducible, the scientific community determined the claims were incomplete, unreproducible, and inaccurate for this Those that failed to reproduce the claim attacked the research results as being incomplete, unreproducible, and inaccurate. in this section - Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

At the top of that section we could also add:

{{main|Martin_Fleischmann#Cold_fusion}}

That section has a more developed version of the same info. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good addition. Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, suggest full revert of disputed content. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please restore the article to this version from 26 September 2010 to remove the BLP violation. Altenatively use this version and if possible, include this edit by Enric Naval. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see that the problem comes from this IP edit[5]. Maybe we could simply nuke that edit. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• - Oppose, this reverts back the undue and excessive criticism that adds nothing of value. 21:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• - Oppose, neither of these edits addresses the BLP concern; specifically, the second and third include the IP edit ("the scientific community") that I thought Petri Krohn objected to. --JN466 00:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment considering it seems we're still a way from achieving consensus may I suggest no further use of the editprotected template until consensus is clearly achieved. I would suggest at least 24 hours be given to everyone to weigh in, particularly those on somewhat different sides here (i.e. Petri Krohn and Off2Riob or Jayen466). While this is a potential BLP issue, I think given that most agree here it isn't a terrible violation to try and achieve consensus on whatever change, whether temporary or permanent to avoid unnecessary disputes. Nil Einne (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"Cold fusion" versus "Stanley Pons"

At present, most of the section headed "Career" is not really about Pons but about the idea of cold fusion, and there are lots of references to this. It seems to me that (not least because this is an issue about which some people still have strong feelings) this article ought to have only the briefest outline, and to link to the WP article on cold fusion for more.

In particular, I have no idea what the note on an experiment in 2009 (long after Pons stopped working on cold fusion, as far as I know and as far as this article indicates) is doing here. (More precisely: I'm pretty sure I understand why it *is* here but I can't think of any good idea why it *should be*.)

Unless I hear cogent objections (I'll wait a few days) I propose to do the following. (1) Check that the text and refs on cold fusion here are adequately represented in the main cold fusion article. (2) Delete the remainder of the paragraph after "but generally failed", all of which is about the subsequent career of the idea of cold fusion and not about Pons. The right place for anyone who wants to know more about cold fusion is the article on cold fusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gareth McCaughan (talk • contribs) 11:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No results

It is NOT true that Pons and Fleischmann had "no results" during the five years of wpork for Toyota. The reproduced the excess heat on numerous occasions, but their results were not conclusive enough for technological exploitation.

Lignomontanus (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)