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)

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)

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)

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)