Talk:Cold fusion

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

European Physical Journal articles on the topic

Could someone make a list of articles appeared in the mentioned journal concerning the topic ? It seems that there are at least two mentioned in some archive of this talk page.--82.137.14.123 (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Rossi

There is now presumably independent confirmation of Rossi's ECat producing surplus heat: [1] I don't know how reliable the authors are (most don't have a single other arxiv article, FWIW), should this be added to the article? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This is being hashed out in the Energy Catalyzer article. I'd suggest waiting until the dust settles, and then add a sentence to the Rossi paragraph at the end of "Subsequent Research". Alanf777 (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

@Roentgenium111, I do not think it should be added here: the authors write about a possible new source of energy of unknown origin and they do not even state that this energy is from nuclear origin.--Insilvis (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This article already states that Rossi "claimed to have successfully demonstrated commercially viable cold fusion in a device called an Energy Catalyzer", making a clear connection to the subject IMO. (But see below.)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Using that arxiv would violate WP:CIRCULAR. It's also WP:RECENTISM, and undue. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The arxiv article has been quoted in other "non-circular" sources, but I tend to agree not to include it here unless reported more widely. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Stresses in the Palladium

I don't see this in the article, maybe I missed it.

The story I heard years ago was, the Pons and Fleischmann experiment used faulty Palladium electrodes. They were not properly annealed and thus had internal stresses. These stresses were released during electrolysis, yielding energy.

Can someone comment on that? Jokem (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Kozima as source

Hideo Kozima's book about cold fusion could be cited. Feeedback?--5.15.200.209 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean 2006 Elsevier's The Science of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon? I haven't seen any review that doesn't come from other proponents (which means that it's difficult to establish if has a reputation for fact checking, good reporting, etc, since there are no independent reviews ffrom outside the field). Kozima is an emeritus professor of physics, but almost his whole career seems to spin around CF?? (see list of papers, every single paper is related to CF?). With only these indications, I would expect his writing to be very biased in favor of CF, and his fact reporting would be of unknown reliability. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Not his whole career. See this list of papers. He did work with plasmas and solid states over three decades before going down the CF rabbit hole circa 1997. Still, since then, it does seem to be all CF all the time. Of course that is rather the point of academic tenure - allowing the outrageous to be considered. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

New Sources

Star in a jar - Cosmo Garvin http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/star-in-a-jar/content?oid=35071 Cold fusion reactor independently verified, has 10,000 times the energy density of gas - Sebastian Anthony http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-10000-times-the-energy-density-of-gas — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankRadioSpecial (talk • contribs) 19:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No offense, but is either of those sources potentially reliable? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I take that back. The first is potentially reliable, but, if there's no followup, it belongs in free energy suppression, rather than here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The first cite is a 2005 claim of bubble fusion and should be discussed in that article. I think it would be a good addition, as I don't see that Tessien's work is discussed there as yet.--Noren (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Bubble fusion is an attempt at "hot" fusion, so is irrelevant to the article [[2]] Bhny (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this should probably be included on this page (EU commission report): http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/emerging-materials-report_en.pdf. Section 3.4 gives a brief overview of Pd/D reactions urging the need of funding future research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.157.15.91 (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's be careful about workshops dedicated to speculative research. This report arises from the "Forward Looking Workshop on Materials for Emerging Energy Technologies". This is not dedicated to hard facts, but to proof-free speculations about possibilities and possible potentials.

And the recommendation in section 3.4 is only from the presenter of that specific paper. The joint recommendations are in chapter 8: they are very general, and they don't mention any specific technology.

And in the legal notice: "The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission." This is doesn't sound like an official EU report. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

EU's 'Directorate-General for Research and Innovation' asks several experts to give their views on recent developments in certain areas, which they do, and this is written in this report. How is this different from the 2004 DOE report on Cold Fusion, which is mentioned in the article? US 'Department of Energy' asks several experts to give their opinion on developments in the area in 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.157.15.91 (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this particular document on its own doesn't contain much information, let alone a specific plan.

What MIGHT be more appropriate is a section (title to be agreed) relating to "major" ongoing support for, or formal investigations, of Cold Fusion in Government (Italy, ENAE: USA, NRL? : European Parliament, recent presentation by SKINR, NRL, NI..), Highly qualified commercial organisations (SRI,NI). and Universities where CF is supported at the Department (SKINR) or Group (eg Purdue Nuclear and Many-Body Theory Group Group) level. Not necessarily endorsing CF, but an indication of high-level interest. A lot of work by individual researchers, eg MIT's Hagelstein, would NOT fall under this heading. NASA's "forward looking" plans (Bushnel) might qualify. Alanf777 (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's talk about WP:NOTNEWS and the bias of WP:RECENTISM.

Between 1992 and 1997 the Japanese government spent $20 million and got no results. Toyota spent $40 millions with Fleischmann and Pons, also with no results. Now a private millionaire has donated $5.5 million, and we claim victory before it has had time to obtain any result?

And NRL uses an undetermined budget. And NASA's Zawodny seems to be doing some undeterminated stuff based in Widom-Larsen's theory, using a smallish budget. As for ENEA, in 2006-2007 the Italian government allocated some funding, but since then all ENEA experiments seem to be carried only in the Frascati center of ENEA, with unknown funding.

As far as I know, there is no "major" ongoing support, or formal investigations, beyond the SKINR program. And in past years there were greater efforts, which obtained no results. How is the SKINR program different from previous programs? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The presentation on Cold Fusion to the European Parliament in June 2013 was noted (in advance) by Hambling/Wired http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-05/24/cold-fusion-research : photos of the slides were leaked to an unreliable source (Passi22 blog), but have now been published officially : http://www.enea.it/it/Ufficio-Bruxelles/news/new-advancements-on-the-fleischmann-pons-effect-paving-the-way-for-a-potential-new-clean-renewable-energy-source --- this self-qualifies as a reliable source, so I plan to write a summary. As far as sponsorship goes, we have the OFFICIAL ENEA/NRL project, in which SRI and more recently SKINR participate. This work is supported in the US by DARPA, DTRA, Electric Power Research Institute, Office of Naval Research and in Italy by government funding at the research institute level (ENEA).

How is SKINR (etc) different : The slides (linked from the above) indicate (1) improved reproducability (cathodes which worked at ENEA and NRL worked at SKINR), (2) COP with a PEAK of 40X, 30X continuous for 960 hours (3) Direct detection of He4 3He (and Tritium? "t" ??) from injecting D+ ions into Pd+"Catalysts" at room temperature (4) Much quicker loading in Electrolytic (F&P) experiments (5) Irrefutable calorimetry plus checks for RF Alanf777 (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great, go for it.84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(and please stop mentioning support from DARPA. That was discussed here. There is a program at the 2009 budget that looks like someone slipped cold fusion research by using misleading wording [3]. DARPA gives funding to SRI, and SRI makes some cold fusion research, but DARPA has never given direct funding for cold fusion, beyond this one program? If DARPA was really supporting cold fusion, would it be hiding it under the rug in misleading descriptions. It looks more like DARPA refuses to fund cold fusion, and SRI can only get money by disguising his real goals and hoping nobody notices....) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Better tell McKubre to update his bio (eg) http://research.missouri.edu/vcr_seminar/may09_speakers.htm " In the last decade and a half as Director of the Energy Research Center, Dr. McKubre has applied himself to the discovery and application of potential new energy sources, specifically those associated with the deuterium/palladium system. He is recognized internationally in this field as an expert in the areas of PdH and PdD electrochemistry and calorimetry and has directed research and undertaken consulting in this area for the Electric Power research Institute (EPRI), the Japanese Ministry of Industry and Technology Innovation (MITI), the Defense Advanced Research Program Agency (DARPA), the US Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) and Office of Naval Research (ONR), and Italian National Energy Agency (ENEA). "" Alanf777 (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not a "presentation (...) to the European Parliament". That's a meeting with one member of EU parlament, in room 6Q1 of the Jozsef Antall building. Concretely, they met with Italian politician Amalia Sartori, chair of the Industry, Research and Energy committee. So, the Italian ENEA has arranged a meeting with an Italian member of the European Parlament. There is no endorsement from the European Parliament. 'Signature copied by AF to delineate sections Enric Naval 21:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure looks like a "presentation" to me : http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sMj4xRCysxA/Ua4Z2cWSxMI/AAAAAAAAJjE/A5vdAYzMJ6A/s1600/P1070365.jpg Alanf777 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

And it's just one more event in Brussels (search for "03 giugno 2013") and it's the only event with no link for further information......

So, I'll ask again. How is the $5.5 mill funding for the SKINR program more important than the failed fundings of $40 mill from Toyota, $20 mill from the Japanese government, the unknown amount from Italian government, the unknown amount from the Indian government, etc? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(It would be helpful if you'd sign individual sections) "So, the Italian ENEA has arranged a meeting with an Italian member of the European Parlament. There is no endorsement from the European Parliament." I never said there was. But the presentation was introduced (and concluded by) Edit Herczog, MEP, Member ITRE Committee (from Hungary), and a presentation was made by Herbert Von Bose, European Commission, DG RTD, Director Industrial Technologies (eg)http://ec.europa.eu/nanotechnology/pdf/swedish-presidency-event/von_bose.pdf (German, not Italian either). Alanf777 (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"So, I'll ask again. How is the $5.5 mill funding for the SKINR program more important than the failed fundings of $40 mill from Toyota.." There never was a report on WHY it was terminated. "Leaked" information indicates that it was progressing technically -- but I obviously don't have reliable information on that. This is the last paper that came out of IMRI : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf Alanf777 (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Believe it or not, but a lot has been learned since then. In particular, the "enabling criteria" such as D-loading, required currents and a final "stimulus". See Craven & Letts for details. Second, the search for the "Nuclear active sites" has progressed from the bulk, to the surface, to sub-micron features in Pd/Ni and the requirement for "catalysts" at the ppm level. ENEA and NRL have made significant progress in making cathodes that work. So far SKINR has just replicated their own earlier work, and now have replicated the results of ENEA and NRL. The ENAE/NRL project is by a formal International Agreement. That's not under-the-radar funding. Exactly how DARPA contributes is not clear, but McKubre clearly implies that THIS work is supported by them. It's NOT just for general supplies and toilet paper. Alanf777 (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Pons could claim whatever he wanted (and that would be a conference presentation, not a published paper), but Toyota didn't report any success, and no reproducible experiment was ever achieved. Robert Park said "Technova had finally given up on cold fusion. Stanley Pons was let go and is reportedly living in near seclusion on a farm in the South of France. In ten years, he had done little but repeat the flawed experiments that were done at the University of Utah."[4] A 1997 ACS book says that cold fusion was still forgotten, even at the height of the Japanese private funding, when it looked like they were going to get results [5]. Toyota ended his support in 1998, and a 2005 book says that cold fusion remained a pariah science, even after the Toyota funding, the Naval Research Laboratory publications, the Japanese government funding, and the research in China and Italy [6]. There you have it, a sourced secondary conclusion that the funding programs have not changed the status of cold fusion.

So, again, what makes the SKINR fundings different from all the previous failed fundings? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

(Following Hyman Kaplan : ) *R*E*P*L*I*C*A*T*I*O*N* (Of their own prior work, and by using ENEA/NRL cathodes in their own environment). What part of COP=30 for 960 hours don't YOU understand ? Alanf777 (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

And since you apparently didn't look at the last IMRI paper (see above),by T. Roulette, J, Roulette, and S. Pons, reporting on a particular calorimeter, made 7 runs, of which 4 failed, 1 had variable power, one had 150% excess power over 30 days, and one had 250% excess power over 70 days. wrt Toyota, the main internal sponsor, Minoru Toyoda, died (I can't find an exact date) : http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion_pr.html I asked why his lab in the south of France had lost its funding. "Minoru Toyoda was a great man," said Fleischmann. "Not the kind of man you find very often, who is willing to say, 'This is what I am going to do, and I don't care if you think I am mad.' After he died -" Fleischmann grimaced. "What you have to ask yourself is, who wants this discovery?" Alanf777 (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia works with reliable sources. A conference paper from the IICF is not usually considered a reliable source. I provided several reliable sources saying that past funding efforts didn't change the status of cold fusion. You have provided no reliable source that suggests otherwise. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A pseudoscientist has claimed to have replicated their OWN WORK?!?!? Well I guess that proves it then! It seems our naive concepts of logic, reason, the scientific method, and rational thought were just quaint notions that could never compete with your “outrageous claims” based system of knowledge. Well, there’s no sense delaying the “energy revolution” any longer. Why don’t you start rewriting the article to tell the English speaking world that cold fusion is real Alanf777? And while you’re doing that I’ll write to the pope to ask him to canonize Martin Fleischmann. 68.74.163.157 (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah well .. a fly-by anonymous poster. Alanf777 (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was just flying by when I noticed that your insult to Enric Naval (“What part of COP=30 for 960 hours don't YOU understand ?”) was in flagrant violation of WP:DICK. So why don’t you explain to me why a cold fusion proponent CLAIMING that they replicated their own CLAIMED success is significant? 68.74.163.157 (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Alan777 is scraping at the very bottom of the barrel. It's farcical to think that self-relplicated tests are of any significance, and it borders on trolling. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's Enric Naval doing the trolling ("So again ..." ... "So again ..." ), refusing to accept even the concept that $5.5M in 2103 can achieve something that $20M or $40M failed to do in the 1990's (if you count 250% excess for 70 days as failure), because of advances in the field. SKINR's first replication was resuming and confirming a 1991 experiment (Pelas), which had been terminated due to loss of funding. Now they are reporting (admittedly in a slide, not yet in a paper) that they replicated work by OTHER institutions, namely NRL and ENEA. That's not SELF replication. To claim that The University of Missouri, SKINR, NRL and ENEA are "pseudoscientists" is preposterous. Alanf777 (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

When truly independent replication and confirmation gets published in an authentic peer-reviewed journal, come back and tell us all about it. Until then, it's not worth even considering as far as WP is concerned, and you're wasting your time, and ours. and that's what trolling is all about. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

At least one DRIP of DE money was spent on CF : "Burke Ritchie / Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 11 (2013) 101–122 ... This work was performed under the auspices of the Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, (LLNS) under Contract No. DE-AC52-07NA27344." (See http://www.llnsllc.com/contract/docs/AppendB_mod53_012209.pdf) -- and THEY don't seem to have a problem publishing the work in JCMNS (the journal related to ICCF/ICMNS) Alanf777 (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

And you might look at his letter to ACS concerning peer review : http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201211/letters.cfm -- clearly a pseudoscientist : http://books.google.com/books/about/Numerical_Solution_of_the_Time_dependent.html?id=z4HytgAACAAJ[ Alanf777 (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The first is a fringe journal by an non-notable fringe organization. You should remember I voted to delete our article on it. Remember the rectums? ( sig copied for para break Dominus Vobisdu )

Who except proctologists review proctology papers? I was pointing out that some CF work at Lawrence Livermore was funded by the DoE, and that LL has no problem publishing it in JCMNS Alanf777 (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Letters are never peer-reviewed. ( sig copied for para break Dominus Vobisdu )

Follow the links, Luke. Peer Review Stifles Originality

The gathering clouds on print v. open access (APS News, October 2012) may presage a publishing Roe v. Wade war in which the printers seem to fear that established science might become tainted by a surfeit of free thought, some of which may actually be correct. My personal experience with peer review is that every paper which I would rather not be out there now, every paper which was trivial or even wrong, sailed through peer review with flying colors. On the other hand the papers of which I am proudest and believe to be the most substantial were the most at risk for being rejected. My paper on chiral-molecule photoelectron angular distributions, published in Physical Review A in 1976, would have been rejected had not an editor sent it to my former postdoctoral advisor, who gave it to a current postdoctoral fellow to check the mathematics. How rare an event do you think this is, which would not have happened had I been ten years or more beyond my degree and absolutely would not have happened today? Single-blind peer review is manifestly flawed. It is a kind of chat room, in which participation requires that you be on topic and say things that everyone else will agree with. This is not hard for most, given the homogeneity of the education system. The peer-review and publishing system persuades you to stay close to the work of your advisors, to be gathered to your fathers (to use an archaic expression), which may be close to the mark because indeed the system stifles independence and creativity. And then there is the emergence of an odd duck of an editor called an "administrative editor," who seems to be a sort of journal commissar to ensure that the journal's impact factor is maintained or improved. This is a misguided journal orientation which will surely filter out most or all original work. Burke Ritchie Livermore, CA Alanf777 (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Can't view the third one, but dollars to doughnuts, it's irrelevant. ( sig copied for para break Dominus Vobisdu )

Numerical Solution of the Time-dependent Schrodinger Equation for Continuum States -- Burke Ritchie, Charles A. Weatherford, Army High Performance Computing Research Center, University of Minnesota Alanf777 (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't you have even the slightest clue what peer-reviewed means? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Rest assured. If there ever is a real breakthrough in cold fusion, it will be published in one of the top physics journals. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Since we're in chat mode, I suspect not. Since CF researchers have been locked out (by specific policy) from, eg, Nature ... I think they'll shun them and continue to use JCMNS/ICCF -- or the few who have accepted CF papers, such as Naturwissenschaften Alanf777 (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Let get this straight. You are arguing that because pseudoscientists have been shunned by proper scientists the pseudoscientists will probably publish their results in journals which cater to pseudoscientific hogwash so we at Wikipedia should accept disreputable journals as sources in case the pseudoscientists should happen to be right?

Yeah, that sounds like some right sound logic you got going on there. 68.74.163.157 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. That being said, I don't doubt that there is some good science being kept out by peer-review because it's implausible, though correct. However, ...

They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. — Carl Sagan

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

...And they laughed at Fleischmann and Pons, right? Except that the man who told them to laugh - Prof. Steven E. Jones (http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/StevenEJones/JonesVote.shtml) - would himself be laughed at when he revealed his true colors as a 9/11 pseudoscientist (http://www.wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7_051122.html "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" Steven E. Jones, (2006)). Silent Key (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As for Fleischmann and Pons, we all know that the original paper published over their names was not their idea; they didn't think it was ready for publication. It appears they were correct. I don't think we should laugh at them, merely note they weren't done with their research. (Furthermore, using "New Energy Times" as a source for anything is something to be laughed at.) Just because Jones is a 9/11 pseudoscientist doesn't necessarily mean he's a fusion pseudoscientist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

On top of his amateur structural engineering, Steven Jones also has another scientific theory:

"Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America"  :

"The Book of Mormon makes the bold statement that Jesus Christ, shortly following His resurrection, visited people in the New World and invited them to "feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am...the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world. ... Ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice..." (3 Nephi 11:14, 15:21). The Bible states that Jesus "showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days" and that this witness of Christ would be "unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Acts 1:3-8) and that Jesus would indeed visit "other sheep" (John 10:16)."

"Several years ago, an idea popped into my head: Would people in the New World who also saw Jesus Christ leave memorials of this supernal experience by showing marked hands of Deity in their artwork? So I began a search with the following hypothesis-to be tested: Ancient artwork portraying a deity with deliberate markings on his hands will be found somewhere in the Americas. A crazy idea, maybe - but wait till you see the artwork of the ancient Maya!"

Silent Key (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Silent Key,

Were you aware that the purpose of Wikipedia talk pages is to give malcontents with a grudge against reality a platform from which they can launch hypocritical attacks against Steven Jones ? Oh wait….that’s not the purpose of Wikipedia talk pages at all. 68.74.163.157 (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

<redacted> statement about who has "a grudge against reality". The only one I'm sure of is Stephen Jones. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Arthur,

Jones is certainly ridiculous, but to suggest that Pons and Fleischmann must be right because Jones said they were wrong is far more ridiculous. 68.74.163.157 (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I said that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, you know perfectly well that Silent Key’s attack on Jones is both ad hominem (Jones is a conspiracy theorist therefore everything he’s ever said must be wrong) and either or fallacy (either Jones is right about 9/11 or Fleischmann is right about CF, Jones is wrong, therefore Fleischmann must be right). I can’t imagine why you’d be backing him up. 68.74.163.157 (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

My intention isn't to attack Jones. But every time Alanf777, 84.106.26.81 and the others try to present the facts about LENR, they get attacked by a tag-team of WP:RANDYs calling them defenders of pseudoscientists. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of that position. Silent Key (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Pons and Fleischmann were (at least, initially) pseudoscientists, although they were clearly mistaken. I do think that if someone is published in New Energy Times, it is more likely than not that he/she is either a pseudoscientist or a fraud. And I don't think what Alanf777, et. al., are trying to present are actual facts. They may think they are facts, but are usually published in New Energy Times, in press releases, or as (I'm sure there's a nickname for this) projects where success is improbable, but a success would have extraordinary consequences.

I'm used to defending the indefensible. Remember, I fought for a mention of 9/11 conspiracy theories in the main 9/11 attacks article — not that I think there is any truth to them, but they are notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Silent Key, “try to present the facts about LENR” sure sounds a whole lot like “try to present the WP:TRUTH about LENR”, and that sounds a whole lot like a violation of WP:ADVOCACY. 68.74.163.157 (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Err...it only "sounds a whole lot like" that if you're having some kind of ranting inner dialogue with yourself. And indeed when we test that hypothesis with a quick look at your previous contribution (Talk:Gustave Whitehead), we find:

" If you don’t like my opinion then that’s tough crap. It is only my edits TO ARTICLES which Wikipedia says should be neutral. Now stop violating WP:FORUM. 68.74.163.157 (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC) "

Yep. Silent Key (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between "neutral" and "accurate". I agree with 68.* that your posts don't need to be neutral, but they do need to be accurate or they should be ignored. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Silent Key,

Taking my quotes out of context only makes you look desperate and foolhardy. If you had read the conversation you would have realized that I was admonishing a user who attacked me for scrutinizing a source. 68.74.163.157 (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Al Gore praises "very intriguing explorations" in cold fusion

"Google+ Conversation with Al Gore about Combating Climate Change" (Published 11 Jun 2013): [7] Silent Key (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Relevant question is at 18 mins 53 sec. Silent Key (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The production isn't about low energy nuclear reactions in specfic. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

FYI, AfD: International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (2nd_nomination). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)