Talk:Cold fusion

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

use of different name

The section on patents includes this text:

A U.S. patent might still be granted when given a different name to disassociate it from cold fusion. David Voss said in 1999 that some patents that closely resemble cold fusion processes, and that use materials used in cold fusion, have been granted by the USPTO.

Wouldn't the Rossi patent recently granted by the USPTO fit in neatly here (the term 'water heater' being the 'different name' in this context)? --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it would fit, it is clear that Rossi has taken some effort to make his design for a water heater closely resemble a 'cold fusion' device. --Noren (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Avoid mentioning Fleischmann & Pons in patents

The part in bold was removed with summary "deleted part hardly applies given Rossi's patent success (the ref. cited is 13 years out of date also)":

A U.S. patent might still be granted when given a different name to disassociate it from cold fusion,[179] though this strategy has had little success in the US: the same claims that need to be patented can identify it with cold fusion, and most of these patents cannot avoid mentioning Fleischmann and Pons' research due to legal constraints, thus alerting the patent reviewer that it is a cold-fusion-related patent.[179]

This is still valid, right?? Rossi got his US patent after removing all references to cold fusion research. Compare to his Italian patent, which had references to several papers on cold fusion and was rejected on the US.

I don't think Rossi's latest patent is a good counterexample for this sentence. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is it not a good counterexample, actually? The strategy was applied by Rossi and he got his US patent, but perhaps we are talking at cross purposes.
And I'm wondering what these legal constraints are anyway -- the part in bold after the colon makes little sense to me:

"The fact that something can be referenced doesn't necessarily mean that it makes sense".

--Brian Josephson (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand one aspect about the mentioned avoidance in this discussion: Is the name cold fusion a badge of shame or a scarlet letter to some people that it justifies the avoidance?--5.15.53.186 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so — I've never come across the term being used by anyone in that way. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If there is no badge of shame attached to the term, what are then the explicit reasons for the avoidance of the term, especially in patents?--5.15.31.16 (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You have the situation back to front, 5.15. The only reason for including reference to FP would be if the patent used exactly the same process as FP did, but many different processes have been tried. Rossi's patent related to the e-cat for example is different from FP's process in nearly every respect. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Now it makes sense. It seems however that the article tacitly presents cold fusion as FP only, which insists on the fusion of deuterons mediated by the lattice.--5.15.47.116 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed so! You can thank the watching censors for the fact that the article does not present a rounded picture of the field, effectively giving the impression that nothing much has happened since FP. There is a library plus background information at lenr.org (which the aforementioned editors won't allow to be referenced in the article) with much information about the field that you may find instructive and which might even help you improve the article to address your criticism. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It is useful that a repository of articles exist which could be cited as peer reviewed journal articles from journals like International Journal of Hydrogen Energy etc even they are considered a small cluster of specialised journals in article (for instance I see a paper by Celani in Physics Letters A 1996). I also think that an important aspect or question (to be specified in article) is whether FP claims of deuteron fusion have been clearly disproved/falsified or not or just they reproducibility is problematic.--5.15.176.186 (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this will be reassuring, but I do think a bit of perspective is in order. We have had a working scientist in the field, Kirk Shanahan, come here and attempt to improve this article. He was unable to make the changes he felt were needed, and he expressed much frustration with the local rules and practices for what could be included, and he stopped editing years ago. Oh, and he was profoundly skeptical that any energy was actually being produced. This 'censorship', if you choose to characterize it in that way, cuts both ways. --Noren (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Not completely, every now and then I see something so ridiculous I need to respond, like the following comment...Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting! I have learnt that his criticisms were ill-founded, so that outcome is just as well. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry BJ, while it is true that there have been attempts to refute my propositions, none have been successful. Also it is undoubtedly true that the cold fusion community has attempted to ignore my comments, using strawmen arguments and ad hominem attacks to justify their actions. But we all know those aren't valid reasons to ignore technical criticisms. So the net result is that the field continues to exist on supposition and blind faith. To date, I haven't seen any conclusive evidence from the field.Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Supposition and blind ...? I don't think such a situation exist!K S, how do you view the paper by Celani above?--5.15.25.133 (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I assume you mean PhysLettA, 214(1996)1. Interesting experimental work, but the calorimetry is as shaky as any other. My thesis was (and is) that the simplistic models the cold fusioneers use to interpret their data mislead them, and I see all the same signs in this paper. Like I said before, nothing around that compels me to believe in real excess heat (and lots that forces me to apparent excess heat). Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

What are the specific shaky parts of this work? How about the CF results of Yoshiaki Arata, are they conclusively due to nuclear factors?--5.15.191.66 (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in another pointless long-winded debate on this, so here's all I'll say: They are using a modified F&P cell and report calibration consistencies on the order of 5-10%. This is exactly what my 2002 paper is about, and I found that a +/- 2.5% difference in the calibration constant produced clear apparent excess heat signals. This means that their work (done in 1995-96) must be re-evaluated in light of my discovery. There is no information in their paper to allow that, thus they would have to go back to their lab notebooks to locate the necessary information. Until that time, it is perfectly allowable to disregard the excess heat claim, which is all their paper is about in relation to CF. Their work on determining loading levels from microsecond pulses seems interesting, but I am not an expert on that.

I studied Arata's papers when they came out and I have commented extensively before on Arata's claims. I don't believe them. He's making the same assumptions and thus the same mistakes in his work, I also commented extensively elsewhere on his variable ionization energy mass spectrometry, which is unusual and not well researched, and thus I don't accept his results from that either.Kirk shanahan (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you point a link to this elsewhere?--5.15.35.193 (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Google "Shanahan in sci.physics.fusion" Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That got me to https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Skeptical_arguments/Shanahan#CR-39. How might that do? --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I never participated in Wikiversity because it was essentially a solo effort by Abd that he started after he got banned here for bad editing tactics. I was actually referring to searching the sci.physics.fusion (spf) Usenet newsgroup archives. If you Google spf, and then go there. you can search on my name there and find the comment on Arata i posted way back then. The wikiversity pages may hold copies of a few of my comments, but presented via Abd's warped view of what I said...not the best way to understand...perhaps reading my papers would help... Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, Abd is merely summarising the conclusions of those who have read your papers. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, just remember what the 'group of 10' ended up with after they supposedly read my papers...a picture that was diametrically opposed to what I said. Best to read the source papers oneself in cases like that. Kirk shanahan (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

A good counter-example would be a patent that:

• is an approved US patent
• describes a cold fusion device, according to reliable sources
• references research Fleischmann & Pons

About the legal constraint, it's probably the obligation to cite prior art. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that if a RS describes it as a cold fusion device it also needs to reference F&P. In fact, as I understand it, patents are about describing what the invention is, not explaining it -- which is why there is no necessity to mention cold fusion in the patent. And I'm not sure about the need to mention prior art either -- according to my limited understanding, prior art comes in because it could invalidate a patent. A patent would have to be framed in such terms as to make it clear that some aspects are novel but that needn't require doing the comparision explicitly (as per my very limited knowledge of these things). --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, this is not a discussion forum for your opinions about how patents work. You have neither cited a reliable source nor provided a patent that is accepted by other editors as a clear counter-example. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

How ridiculous! Here's the proof, taken from a UK govt. web site , that I actually know what I'm talking about when I say "patents are about describing what the invention is", and that it is not just my opinion, as you have asserted:

Your professional IP advisor prepares a patent application which includes:

• a written description of your invention: allowing others to see how it works and how it could be made
• drawings: to illustrate your description
• claims: precise legal statements in the form of single sentences that define your invention by setting out its distinctive technical features
  etc.
  --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

End matter

I don't see a fundamental difference between "Notes" and "References with quotations or other additional text", and the article's distinction between them puzzles me, and perhaps others too. Why can't they be merged? Nyttend (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Publications -- Current state of research

Let me be quite clear here ...

(1) The purpose of the Cold Fusion (LENR) article is NOT to disprove it, but to report on what it is, the research on it, and any relevant business activity involving it (including patents). I am explicitly eschewing ANYTHING which violates these principles.

(2) I put in the subsection on current state of research simply because the article as it is now is outdated and ignores the current state of research. The special publication issue noted is from Feb. 2015, so it is fairly current, and covers LENR from a wide range of perspectives, even including an article about a college course in it at MIT.

(3) The criticism that it is "Some sort of promotional stuff" is wrong. It is clear the person who removed this material knows nothing about scientific literature in India (since this is from a leading scientific journal in India), and did not read any of the articles reported, including the introduction to the special issue. I at least read SOME of them, and found them interesting and valuable. I believe that other people interested in this topic would also find it useful.

For the above reasons I reinserted the material. I think this subsection is a bit long, but it shows the extent of research, its international scope, and many of the leading researchers in the field. Because of these reasons I felt it best to include the contents in their entirety. Doing any less would harm the value of the Wiki article, since (as I noted above) it is currently deficient. Robert92107 (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Robert: Even though I support LENR research I don't actually think it appropriate to have this complete listing of papers in the article, especially as all details can be accessed on the Journal's web site. But I feel it would be appropriate instead to give the general indications that you refer to. What I'd recommend to this end is that you include the details (titles and authors) of just two or three of the most important papers, and for background indicate the total number of papers, and list the countries involved. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

What Brian Josephson said. This is an encyclopedia, not a list of papers. If you can write up something in encyclopedic prose, citing those papers as references, then I can support inclusion. Banedon (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I'm afraid I don't have the time to produce the kind of text you propose as that requires a lot of care and attention, but perhaps Robert will be able to do this along the lines suggested. If you don't like a 'list' of 2 or 3 important papers then a summary of each instead would be fine by me. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I realize that I do have a tendency to want to be more comprehensive than perhaps the average reader is comfortable with. To me this is reasonable, however to some extent I also see your point.

However, I am not a physicist, and do not have the ability to accurately summarize the "most significant" of the articles. Nor would I have sufficient time to go through over 150 pages of scientific summaries and distill them into the kind of summary that they -- and this Wiki article -- deserve. Thus, I am at a bit of a quandary, since the "summary" I intended was simply the list of articles, and I was leaving it up to the reader to understand both the breadth of research, how this has been a world wide field of study, and what part of it might be of further interest to them.

In part the problem is exacerbated by the existing text of this whole Wiki article. For example, the confirming tests done after Pons and Fleischman's work are discussed, but in this issue the explanation of why they failed and other tests succeeded is clearly given. Also, in some articles the theoretical framework of the LENR process is being put together, but I don't want to get into trying explain something that is not fully formed and that I don't fully understand anyway. I also don't really have the bona fides sufficient to say what is truly significant and what isn't among the many articles listed.

In retrospect, this Wiki article has much out of date material. This special publication issue (from a major general scientific journal in India) discussing the state of the art based on the latest worldwide research paints a very different picture, since it includes what researchers have found to be reproducible and what they understand. This issue shows there is a wealth of fascinating and important information here which sheds light on the entire cold fusion (LENR) field as it is currently understood. There is just no way that I can adequately summarize it all, and sticking in a paragraph or two saying that this issue is a "must read" for anyone who wishes to understand the current state of cold fusion (LENR) really doesn't cut it. In part, this is because the Wiki article is already supposed to be a summary of the state of the art, yet it profoundly isn't the way it written now.

What I am left with is the realization that this Wiki article is inherently flawed because (1) it is sadly out of date (since much of its data is a decade or more old) in a field which is undergoing active development, and (2) it is already large (currently 8500 words). A proper summary of the state of art in this field would add thousands more. So, clearly a whole new article should be created to reflect current understanding, and much of the existing Wiki article put into a new "Early History of Cold Fusion".

Sadly, some long-time editors of this Wiki article will be upset because they are convinced the entire field is composed of charlatans. However, simply denying something they don't believe in is not proper science. It is important to have some sort of accurate reference to information about the current state of the art and what is happening in this new area of physics research. Much more work will need to be done in Wikipedia to resuscitate its explanation of cold fusion (LENR).

So, I am left with putting in some sort of "summary" which will offend some people because of what it says. It will be inadequate because of my lack of expertise in this field. It will likely omit some important things. In short, I am not at all convinced that a shorter "summary" will be in the least better than what I put in originally. It seems to me that this is trading one sort of problem for another. Robert92107 (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

What if you send me a draft (which you can do via my talk page, or include the draft as a new section in the talk page) which I can comment on?
The in-effect censorship (including for example deleting from the article reference to the fact that the Japanese govt. has recently been soliciting applications for work in this field) that you refer to in this article is not just bad science but bad wikipedia. They claim it is justified as it is a fringe subject, but that characterisation is no longer justifiable at this time.
My gawd! Would you believe it! I tried to include a link to the Japanese govt. support information, and have been told by the robot that the site it is on has been censored!!! Unfortunately I couldn't give a link to the official site where the information was available originally as the application details were deleted on the expiry date. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
update—looks like the link is now available, so I'll give it here. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Censored?!! This is very interesting! What is procedure involved in censoring that site on wiki? Has it somehow put on spam blacklist?--5.15.5.245 (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC) By whom? Is there an automatic way to block some external links?--5.15.5.245 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. This is not a high priority item for me however, so don't expect it quickly.

As to the state of cold fusion, yes, there seems to be lot brewing. As you may know, Brillouin a couple weeks ago hosted a presentation at the US Congress, Nov. 2015. (I don't really read this website, but I did a google to find something about the presentation.) Brillouin's website had a link to the special issue as well as quite a few interesting articles. Robert92107 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Re the characterisation [of fringe which] is no longer justifiable at this time from above, of course it holds, but how can this statement be w'verified beyond a reasonable doubt? I've noticed some people proposing the mentioning of some historian(s) of science to be cited to justify the non-fringe status. Is that a workable solution?--79.119.216.218 (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I should think things like the number of publications related to it in journals, support by governments, and there must be articles about it. 'fraid I don't have time to research this in detail. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Support by governments and the number of publications in journals seem a valid and reasonable attestation of the non-fringe status.--79.119.216.218 (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want to look into the matter then all you could possibly want to know, and even more, can be found at WP:fringe theories. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Robert, the prime function of LENR research is not to test any hypothesis. Much of it is pathological science. The list gives undue weight to a fringe view, and if even Brian Josephson - a lovely chap but characterised by a particularly credulous approach to this - tells you you're wrong, then you're definitely wrong. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

prime function of LENR research is not to test any hypothesis—wrong
Much of it is pathological science—wrong
fringe view—wrong
credulous approach—not wanting just to accept people's claims I have visited a number of labs to check out their procedures. Better than armchair criticism, I suggest.
bdj tells Robert he is wrong—only to the extent that I suggested a full list of papers was inappropriate: not exactly saying he is wrong. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:30, 1 December

2015 (UTC)

Copy editing the article

How does everyone want to edit this article. I was looking at the article history and saw that the article has been pretty much stagnant. It has less than 500 edits since 2012. This is always a bad sign for an article. I was editing the article sentence by sentence so that individual sentence changes could be reverted if there were disagreements. Based on my looking over this article it needs a lot of work and a lot more noninvolved editors working on it. The individual sentence approach I think is the fastest way to improve this article. I unfortunately do not have that much time and cannot be on the talk page all the time. -Guest2625 (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Another interesting statistic about the activity on this article since 2014 there have been at least 500 edits on the talk page. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Its a good idea not to do a zillion edits all at once. Be aware that this article has been troubled by those pushing a "pro CF" viewpoint William M. Connolley (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

What William said. The article is also under discretionary sanctions. First, you need to establish that there's a problem needing fixing - I am not convinced, though a great deal of pro-CF cruft has been crowbarred in over the years. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll do inline editing and when there are objections place the edit to be discussed here.

JzG's version:

Cold fusion researchers (McKubre since 1994, ENEA in 2011) have posited that a cell that was loaded with a deuterium/palladium ratio lower than 100% (or 1:1) would not produce excess heat. Storms added in 1996 that the load ratio has to be maintained during many hours of electrolysis before the effects appear. Since most of the negative replications in 1989–1990 did not report their ratios, this has been proposed as an explanation for failed replications.

My minor corrections:

Cold fusion researchers (Michael Kubre in 1994 and ENEA in 2011) have proposed that a cell that was loaded with a deuterium/palladium ratio lower than 100% (or 1:1) would not produce excess heat. Edmund Storms from Los Alamos National Lab added in 1996 that the load ratio has to be maintained during many hours of electrolysis before the effects appear. Since most of the negative replications from 1989–1990 did not report their ratios, this has been proposed as an explanation for failed replications.

References

Explanation:

First sentence: writing the scientist full name when first mentioned in a new section so the reader knows who is being discussed, the moving of the cites to the end of the sentence was more for style and making the sentence more laymen same for the inclusion of the and. I also used "propose" for this reason. Posited is a stilted sort of wording and propose is a lay synonym for it. However, perhaps JzG is aiming for the precise definition of posited. Here are definitions from google define of the two words:

propose -- "put forward (an idea or plan) for consideration or discussion by others."

posit -- "assume as a fact; put forward as a basis of argument."

Therefore, if we use the exact defintion of posit that it means to assume as a fact then I would consider that wording nonneutral from a wikipedia point of view; however, the editors of this article might feel comfortable to use instead of posit the phrase "assume as fact" in the article. And that is what I think should be done if the word remains. There is no need to hide behind Latin words rather than sticking with lay wording.

Second sentence: according to JzG was reverted because "Rm. citation to CF crank Storms". However, it does not appear that the citation to Storm was removed instead it is still sitting in the sentence. When referencing individuals in a new section it is generally good to use their full names that is why I added "Edmond". Also it is good to get an idea of who this individual is that is why in the article we have wikilinks to the individuals and the establishment that they work for. Did I make an error in stating that Edmond Storm worked for Los Alamos National Lab. If he is a crank and an unreliable source should we not remove that sentence. I certainly was confused. If he is not a wikipedia reliable source than he definitely needs to be removed.

Third sentence: should be "from 1989–1990" not "in 1989–1990" the ndash in this case means to therefore it should be "from date to date". --Guest2625 (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you fopr pointing out that Storms is still cited, I will fix that. He is a crank and a True Believer, his work is untrustworthy. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. On style reasons I agree that the second sentence should be removed. It essentially repeats what the first sentence says. However, no evidence has been provided that Edmund Storm is not a reliable wikipedia source. To assume that Edmund Storm is an unreliable source would require that the reader place his faith in the opinion of the editor Guy who is a devout follower of the strange skeptic–true believer discourse. Interestingly enough Edmund Storm's definition of cold fusion is the one that appears at the top in a google web page search for cold fusion. Not sure what to make of that, but I guess neutral wikipedia cannot always be the number one in search results. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Google searches reveal excitement not reliability. Did you notice the titles of some of the pages found by Google? They alone show the source is not reliable. Consider the two scenarios: (a) A wonderful source of very low cost and inexhaustible energy is available to solve all human problems [but horrible mainstream science won't accept it]; versus (b) Yet another miracle cure has been found [but no working model has been produced for independent examination]. Which of those two scenarios is closer to Storm's views? Which is more likely to correspond to reality per WP:REDFLAG? Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The statement about the google search was an aside. My main concern is that Guy did not present any evidence that Edmund Storms was an unreliable source. Perhaps he is an unreliable source and wears a tinfoil hat, and in this case for the good of other editors, the evidence should be provided. Concerning your question: according to the removed source, Storms believes in the anomalous production of excessive heat by cold fusion, so scenario a. is closer to his view. However, both scenarios have been poorly worded and use nonneutral language. A neutral assessment of cold fusion research can be given by the following paragraph:

In 2004, a review panel of the US Department of Energy was "split approximately evenly" on whether cold fusion experiments up until then had produced excess heat, but "most reviewers, even those who accepted the evidence for excess heat production, 'stated that the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented.'"

--Guest2625 (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

References

I am not a "devout follower" of anything. A friend of mine was actually involved in Fleischmann's experiments. He is a professor of electrochemistry with a list of patents and publications as long as your arm, and rather than rely on motivated lay opinions of the published facts, I ask him, as a credentialled expert in the field. Obviously the cold-fusion proponents who have been attacking this page for years, will dispute this. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion for how that worked out for them before. Cold fusion is a pariah field, and those who believe in it are part of the fringe. They want to change that, and they want Wikipedia to be part of driving that change. I completely understand why, but it is entirely antithetical to Wikipedia's purpose. Wikipedia is, by design, a mainstream reference: we describe firnge views but we do not endorse them or pretend they are anythihng other than fringe. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I would not go that far. Yes, cold fusion is a pariah field, and mainstream science considers it crank. However a small number of otherwise-respectable scientists continue to work on it, and within this small community Storms is considered as much of an expert as anyone. If Storms says there is unambiguous evidence that tritium is produced in X experiment, I'd be careful about including it in the article, but if he says CF researchers are now investigating whether excess heat is produced when X is done with Y, I'd treat that as reliable. Banedon (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Headers for the history section

William's version:

History

Before the Fleischmann–Pons experiment

Fleischmann–Pons experiment

Subsequent research

My version:

History

Early research

Fleischmann–Pons experiment

Subsequent research

I prefer the second version of the headers, because they are briefer and more aesthetic. The second version of the headers convey the exact same information as the first; however, the second version also has brevity and internal symmetry. Little details are important in making a great article, for example, n-dashes instead of hyphens, correct placement of images, simple wording, non-repetitiveness etc. In this case, the second version of the headers have a nice internal symmetry—the "Early research" header reflects off the "Fleischmein–Pons experiment" and gives the symmetric "Subsequent research". The other version of the headers, unfortunately, appears to the reader as clumsy and wordy. And wordiness is something that this article definitely needs to cut down on. That is why the removal of a repetitive sentence in the above discussion was good. More is not better. If something is being repeated or overly wordy, it should be pared down. --Guest2625 (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The new title implies a long unified research effort, with the F&P experiment happening in the middle of the effort. But the F&P experiment was totally disconnected from previous research. It was also developed independently from Jone's experiment, which turned out to be a different effect. The field as such started in 1989, with the F&P experiment. "Early research" misrepresents the content, IMHO.

Maybe "Previous research"? --Enric Naval (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"Early research" is already preferential and focused on the Fleischmann–Pons experiment, since no other experiments are mentioned in the headers. "Early research" can itself be considered as undue weight to the Fleischmann–Pons experiment, since the first section in fact is about the earlier experiments of Paneth–Peters and Tandberg. Fleischmann and Pons' research might be disconnected from the earlier research (at least as far as they claim); however, factually they cannot be credited with being the first to hypothesize or test palladium as a catalyst for fusion of hydrogen at room temperature. Paneth and Peters earlier results were well publicized and published in Naturwissenschaften and Nature and at the time created a stir.

Martin Fleischmann started his electrochemistry career in the 1940s only a decade after John Tandberg's analogous work in the 1930s. Austrian-born British chemist Friedrich Paneth died in 1958, Austrian chemist Kurt Peters died in 1979, and Swedish chemical engineer sv:John Tandberg died in 1968. All these scientists can be considered contemporaries of British chemist Martin Fleischmann (1927-2012) with whom their chemistry careers overlapped. Fleischmann and Pons were clearly not the first to study room temperature fusion; however, it is true, that they were the first to successfully promote the idea of room temperature fusion on a mass media scale, which they succeeded at by reporting their results in a news conference rather than a peer-reviewed journal.

Perhaps a more appropriate header set would be:

History

Paneth–Peters and Tandberg experiments

Fleischmann–Pons experiment

Subsequent research

Although, I find this first header a bit wordy and think the "Early research" header is better. Guest2625 (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)