Talk:Cold fusion

Skip to table of contents

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

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.

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.

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.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 23, 2012, March 23, 2014, and March 23, 2017.

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

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
Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Physics B‑class 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism B‑class 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
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.

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by .

2017-3-1 Time to clean up this page

This might convince WIKI editors that it is time to repackage this whole page into a format where this page can evolve properly. For historic reasons many will want to maintain section where the Dark phase of Cold Fusion history is recorded. But it is now time to reflect the Wikipedia page with the kind of material in this Canadian Atomic Energy Company paper.

BSmith821 (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the YouTube and your OneDrive link - feel free to link instead to the actual report on an official website of a reputable scientific or government agency (but not one of the cold fusion copyright theft sites like lenr-canr). No, we're not going to reassemble links with spaces to evade the spambots, in order to review the advocacy of cold fusionists. See WP:RS for the kinds of sources that are considered reliable. Note that cold fusion advocacy is a long-term problem on Wikipedia and we apply high standards to proposed sources. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Guy, the sources as provided are useless for our purposes, the youtube video is not a reliable source, lets just rip that bandaid off right now. We also cannot link to documents on Onedrive. However, the linked onedrive document: Compendium of information on international activities pertaining to the topic of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited does actually seem to be a genuine document by said crown corporation and nuclear science laboratory. If we had an official publication of this document, I think it would meet our requirements of being a reliable source. However, I haven't found one as of yet (despite the document saying that it is 'Unrestricted' in the header, they don't seem to have published it on their website that I can find). Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're braver than I am... when following a link to document by a person not known to me I don't allow javascript, and whatever is past that link seems to require javascript to show anything at all. --Noren (talk)

Proposed edit

The following statement in the introduction (or whatever the paragraphs before the content list are called) is somewhat problematic. “Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.” [5]

When checking the sources for this comment (they are all listed on the cold fusion page under [5]), it turns out that 3 of them (I couldn’t access a copy of the fourth: Close, 1992) are all significantly negative/critical, accusing the two scientists of errors (or hypothesizing ways in which errors could be produced), or claiming that Pons and Fleischmann had made errors that lead to their results, but without actual evidence that such errors were produced in the original experiments. Someone else would need to check the fourth source to see if this is the same, but there really needs to be an edit along the lines of "other scientists claimed that Fleischmann and Pons had not detected nuclear reaction byproducts". At the very least, at the moment it’s inaccurate and misleading. (203.122.247.182 (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]