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

Template:Vital article

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.

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.

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:

‹See TfM›

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.

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, March 23, 2017, and March 23, 2019.

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.

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

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 .

Muon-catalyzed

According to the article on muon-catalyzed fusion, the term 'cold fusion' was coined to describe it. So... why does this article say they're definitely separate things? Also that template up there is chilling. Wikipedia has fallen a long way to start authorizing committees to threaten sanctions and adding qualifiers to the 'be bold' impetus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.186.125 (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That usage is also mentioned in this article. Like many words and phrases in the English language, the meaning of the phrase 'cold fusion' has changed over time. This article is in reference to the modern usage of the phrase rather than to the historical. The only time 'cold fusion' is likely to be used today in reference to muon-catalyzed fusion is in reference to that very factoid or by persons such as yourself who are aware of both usages of the phrase and are thus unlikely to be confused by the possible ambiguity.--Noren (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NASA Lattice Confinement Fusion.

It's not hot fusion, it's not Muon catalysed fusion, it most closely resembles cold fusion. ^[1]

My edit was removed due to "it being far-from cold fusion" however the article itself states "at or *near* room temperature." and this experiment while not at room temperature was near it.

Under the heading Current research, it sates that "Cold fusion research continues today[when?] in a few specific venues, but the wider scientific community has generally marginalized the research being done and researchers have had difficulty publishing in mainstream journals. The remaining researchers often term their field [...] Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR), [...]; one of the reasons being to avoid the negative connotations associated with "cold fusion". The new names avoid making bold implications, like implying that fusion is actually occurring" And this experiment is a LANR experiment so I believe it belongs here, as LANR and other forms of assisted nuclear reactions do not have their own distinct pages.

198.28.92.5 (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yogic Flying (that link is not helpful) is defined as "either flying while sitting in a lotus position, or hopping while sitting in a lotus position and getting photographed while in the air in order to give the impression of flying while sitting in a lotus position". The first one is not possible, and for the second one, the term is a misnomer. This seems to be a similar case of lumping the impossible with the possible into a mongrel term. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it belongs in the Colliding beam fusion article, not here, if I understand it correctly. --Steve (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/space/science/lattice-confinement-fusion/

[1] ttps://www1.grc.nasa.gov/space/science/lattice-confinement-fusion/

[1]