Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

We seem to be missing an explanation of LENR!

Search Wikipedia for LENR, and you get redirected to this page, which is all about the discredited Fleischmann–Pons experiment.

There is a mention of LENR, it suggests that it's an alternative name used by a small group of researchers who are continuing to attempt the Fleischmann–Pons experiment.

I was trying to find out more information about LENR research which has gone well beyond this, essentially not doing traditional fusion of deutrium to Helium but from Nickel to Copper, or Carbon to Nickel. This page seems irrelevant to the subject.

Here is a paper illustrating a typical contemporary LENR experiment:

http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

And here is an interesting article from NASA:

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864/

I do hope you gentlemen can stop squabbling about a 25 year old experiment and get on with explaining what is happening with contemporary LENR research.

Either that or stop redirecting LENR here because it's very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Irwin (talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed this article seems rather hanged in the past and based on quite very old sources from the beginning of the 1990's to establish/asses feasability like this.--5.15.61.82 (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This source has(d) a significant assessment : Harvard scientists have also expressed skepticism about cold fusion.--5.15.61.82 (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it is about Soviet Harvard scientists, as described by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. There is also a reference to Soviet embassy in Washington in this link including Harvard scientists.--79.119.209.81 (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It is mentioned in a lower section that Nickel is often used in experiments as well. The lugano report is not a reliable source (not peer reviewed and a primary source). A specific LENR article is not advised, as LENR is not a universal tagline for the field (some prefer LANR CANR etc.) Cold fusion is still a convenient tagline for the field, and will likely continue to be so until/unless a verifiable theory comes up to explain the effect. There has been some discussion about splitting Cold fusion and the Pons/Fleischman Experiment into separate articles however. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roger Irwin, did you read the section directly above this one yet? It seems to be about the same subject. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't. I started reading this (rather long) talk page at the top, but after reading about 10 minutes of FP bashing and naval gazing I gave up. In effect at the bottom the discussion does get more to the point.

But the real issue is that the caboodle (including talk page) really could be condensed more than a zip file full of spaces:

1) What is Cold Fusion (Fusion reactions achieved without artificial sun like conditions)

1) Summary of PF, problems with results and non repeatably; Link to a specific article about the experiment and the controversy etc (it is relevant to science history etc).

3) A brief paragraph for each of the hypothesized or attempted methods, citing experimental work in course, or linking to specific articles for more detailed experiments such as NIF's lasers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.75.112 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this format would be better than what we have now, which is a bloated and unfocused article. I believe that a splitting of the article could be achieved without changing any of its content and result in two articles that are both superior to the one we have now. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I am troubled by attempts to stretch the definition of "cold fusion" to include inertial confinement (as is involved at the NIF, for instance). Inertial confinement is definitely a "hot fusion" method, relying on extraordinarily high temperatures and pressures (albeit for very short periods of time)—and also relying, not incidentally, on widely-accepted physics. Yes, the fuel is 'cold' when it goes into the chamber, but it's damnably hot before anyone expects it to fuse. (This sort of semantic reframing and redefinition is kind of like what happens when homeopaths try to suggest that what they're dealing with is actually a form of hormesis, to try to add a gloss of credibility to what is otherwise scientifically implausible.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Roger Irwin: Energy Catalyzer is an article. E-Cat has been around for a long time without producing any creditable results. They won't let any credible group test the process on that group's own terms. It would appear that the above NASA article was poorly researched nasa watch, using a single bad source. I would really, really like to see a Mr. Fusion Home Energy Reactor. Scams, an energy source, do not make. Jim1138 (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That route is very susceptible to giving undue weight. Pons-Fleishman has by far received the most coverage in reliable sources, and our article should reflect that. This is similar to the situation described in WP:GEVAL. Pons-Fleishman is simply the most noteworthy instance of LENR/cold fusion research as reflected by reliable sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an external link to [[1]] but perhaps a better link might be:

http://lenr-canr.org/index/DownloadOnly/DownloadOnly.php

which is a php generated table which can be sorted by publication date and author name. Most of the pdf links on the iscmns.org site go to the lenr-canr.org site anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.201.101.145 (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This list seems extensive enough to warrant a revision in this outdated statement in the article: "Since cold fusion articles are rarely published in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals, they do not attract the level of scrutiny expected for science.[14]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.130.136 (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Publications like Infinite Energy aren't really peer-reviewd mainstream scientific journals. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, though we should look at this list in more detail. How about Journal. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/CMNS.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.130.136 (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a dedicated cold fusion publication down to Fleischmann-Pons apologism. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Not a serious journal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you know that it is not a serious journal? What are some objective criteria?--5.15.16.158 (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that the criteria of seriousness of journals have not been specified.--5.15.15.255 (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The reference to lenr-canr.org is just as non-mainstream as an external reference to iscmns.org which went unchallenged. But the lenr-canr.org page has some advantages over the other external references. If somebody wants to read some LENR papers and let the authors speak for themselves, they ought to have ample external references. I just wanted to add the link. (Entropy7 (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC))

Since there is a dearth of references in this article on the subject since 2011 (and only a very few from 2000, relative to the number of research articles available on the topic), it might be worthwhile adding a reference and link (http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/spl.php?splid=2) to the 25 Feb 2015 issue of Current Science that has a special section on low energy nuclear reactions. It contains 30 peer-reviewed papers (both theoretical and experimental)on the subject of cold fusion and they are all available online for free. Most of the papers are of a review nature (with references to prior work) and new research results were not encouraged by the guest editors, so there is only a very few cases of previously unreported research in the papers presented. Since I am one of the guest editors, I am not allowed to contribute this information to the Wiki article. I hope that someone else will do so. Aqm2241 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This "special section" was previously discussed on this talk page at Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 47#Current Science Journal Has Special Section on LENR in upcoming issue. Frankly, it looks like something weird happened with Current Science. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

An interesting link [2]. The first paper mentioned in the list addresses theoretical perspective on CF/LENR/CMNS.--5.15.185.29 (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The authors of the review are from a mathematics department which is very suitable because the theory in CF as well as in conventional nuclear physics is/must be undoubtedly mathematical belonging to mathematical physics.--5.15.185.29 (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

'Cold Fusion' was a fusion of hydrogen atoms to produce helium using a lattice to reduce the required energy. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions use an as yet unproven technique (Muon like catalyzed fusion perhaps, or other theories like Widom Larson or quantum tunneling have been proposed) to slip a proton-electron hydrogen atom into a much larger metal atom like Nickel or tin or iron, then there is radio-active decay that releases energy, an electron released or the proton and electron in the nucleus collapse onto a neutron. A redirect from LENR to cold fusion is like redirecting from Quantum Mechanics to an article on gambling. The net effect is that about five years of peer reviewed material and break through science are being entirely ignored and not reported on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.249.4 (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Oscillatory behavior and anomalous heat evolution in recombination of H2 and O2 on Pd-based catalysts

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00686 143.161.248.25 (talk) 09:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2015

Andrea Rossi, an Italian professor and inventor of the E-Cat LENR system, received US Patent (#9,115,913 B1) on Aug. 25, 2015 for his "Fluid Heater" component. The patent is held by Leonardo Corp. of Miami Beach, FL. This patent reveals some details about the fuel mixture used, although there are other components of the E-Cat LENR system which still have patents pending. While some prototypes of the system have been developed and sold, mass marketing has yet to take place. Robert92107 (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Although you may have permission to edit the page, please review the material and make sure it quotes reliable sources. As it is, it may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Blogs are generally not reliable sources. The patent is valid since I was able to find it on the Patent Office website, but the E-Cat LENR system is not explained and would need inclusion with secondary sources before placing the material above. Inomyabcs (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Since more info re E-Cat was requested, I added some info about it in the Intro as well as put the patent info in the Patents. This is a long, complex article, and it really is not set up for this type of information, since the general thrust of the article is that LENR doesn't work. Now, however, we're seeing that it can work, so that needs to be factored in appropriately. Robert92107 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This is more of a mess than I thought. There is a separate article Energy Catalyzer for the E-Cat. More work will be needed to properly interrelate the two. Robert92107 (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Looks like cold fusion

As this is being done at low temperatures and is published / university press release, it'd be good to add a reference, preferably at the top: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/5/8/10.1063/1.4928572 http://www.gu.se/omuniversitetet/aktuellt/nyheter/detalj//smaskalig-karnfusion-kan-bli-ny-energikalla.cid1323710 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.153.120 (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"laser-induced fusion in ultra-dense deuterium" looks like regular non-cold fusion to me. The fact that the bulk of the surrounding deuterium isn't particularly hot doesn't change the fact that the deuterium hit by the laser and doing the fusion is very hot indeed. We used to have an explanation about 'globally cold, locally hot' fusion that helped disambiguate this sort of confusion. --Noren (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, at the very least, it should be a jumping off link to people who are looking into cold fusion. I think it's reasonable to make that distinction, but we should point people to the idea that advances are being made in fusion without using high temperatures. The theory is that wikipedia is a useful resource for people looking into a subject. "Cold Fusion" can easily be defined as something that refers to fusion not being done at high temperatures. Frankly, I find it exceedingly ludicrous that there is a desperate need to say "cold fusion" is impossible when it's been shown many times that it IS possible (for example, there was an article published in Nature about pyroelectric fusion which is all done on a tabletop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroelectric_fusion). This obsession with saying cold fusion must always be defined as experiments done in the 80's is totally sophomoric. It's all ego all the time with people on both sides of this discussion. Rational people care about energy production done in a way that doesn't require massive investment in equipment and absurdly high temperatures. That is the promise of cold fusion. No one except a bunch of very neurotic individuals care whether muons or lasers or crystals or hydrogen infused metals are used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.153.120 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 24 September 2015

This article is about a process that would generate large amounts of energy, if it ever worked. That is its raison d’être, and edits or talk page discussions about "advances" need to focus on the completely unsubtantiated topic of this article, not about what might be going on elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anyone who currently thinks muon-catalyzed fusion is impossible, nor have I seen that argued this page, and this article certainly never says that... in fact the article mentions the fact that it has been done and that it works. Pyroelectric fusion, on the other hand, is another 'globally cold, locally hot' method that is a bit off the topic of this page. Your objections don't seem to be based on the actual content of the article. --Noren (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not "COLD LOTS OF ENERGY". It's "COLD FUSION". There are many useful applications other than 'lots of energy' that can come from fusion. Also, it's very very easy to show that pyroelectric fusion can create neutrons which can be used to pummel radioactive uranium to do a safe reactor if "lots of energy" is what you want to see. And in fact, the us government provides FUNDING for anyone researching how to provide lots of energy via muon catalyzed fusion which should go to show how people treat this form of cold fusion (which btw, historically, was the first reference to cold fusion .. not pons/fleischman) serious this is. You are doing a huge disservice to researchers into cold fusion everywhere. Your making out the whole area to be a pathological science when it MOST DEFINITELY is not. Very serious researchers are publishing very serious articles into creating fusion at low temperature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.153.120 (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the lede as is and it is false: Cold fusion is a hypothetical type of nuclear reaction that would occur at, or near, room temperature. This is compared with the "hot" fusion which takes place naturally within stars, under immense pressure and at temperatures of millions of degrees. This part is not true: There is currently no accepted theoretical model which would allow cold fusion to occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.153.120 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is a reference to cold fusion for pyroelectric: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0606/p25s01-stss.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.153.120 (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Do we have consensus that we can strike the comment "There is currently no accepted theoretical model which would allow cold fusion to occur." / alter the lede or should we engage a dispute resolution / request for comment process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.153.120 (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Pyroelectric fusion is a different type of fusion. It is based on known physical principles and the mechanism has nothing to do with electrolytic cells .

here is an accepted theoretical model for the very narrow field of Pyroelectric fusion[3]. Your wording implies that all cold fusion experiments have an accepted theoretical model. I think this would be very misleading for the readers. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Pyroelectric fusion is another 'globally cold, locally hot' example- the process generates deuterium of about 100 keV (equivalent to a temperature of about 10⁹ K) For more on this, here's an old version of the Cold Fusion page back when there was a section on these variants. There are also entries there on alleged sonoluminescence fusion and Antimatter-initialized fusion if those would also be of interest.

That being said, I think 50.92 has a point in the case of muon-catalyzed fusion, which requires high energy input in making the muons rather than in heat. A rephrase of the third sentence would be appropriate.--Noren (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Control experiments in LENR / CMNS experiments

Noren and TenOfAllTrades, please explain how saying that control experiments have since been done and necessary results obtained is overstating a source which has written "Now many groups, including Franco's, had done the necessary control experiments, and obtained the necessary confirming results (no heat in the controls)." ? Banedon (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually come to think of it the entire section either requires heavy expansion or outright deletion. An initial lack of control experiments matters not so much as whether they were later done. It would be like criticizing the first tests of Bell's inequality because there are loopholes. The loopholes were closed one by one, and the original criticism is no longer warranted. The same should apply here. Banedon (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleting the "Initial lack of control experiments" subsubsection seems reasonable to me. It appears to me the purpose of it was as part of a historical explanation of the critical response in 1989, not as a current critique (hence the word 'initial' in the heading.) But it doesn't flow well and was a minor tidbit anyhow, so it could go. --Noren (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it can hardly be deemed notable at this point in time. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:01, 27 October 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)

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)

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)

Hummmm, OK, now I can see why used "Early research". I'm OK with it. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Calorimtry errors section -- dangling sentence

In the "Calorimetry errors" section, the dangling sentence at the end of the section should be removed. The sentence:

"According to John Huizenga, who co-chaired the DOE 1989 panel, if unexplained excess heat is not accompanied by a commensurate amount of nuclear products, then it must not be interpreted as nuclear in origin, but as a measuring error."

breaks the logical flow of the section. The section begins with the sentence:

"The calculation of excess heat in electrochemical cells involves certain assumptions."

Then in the next two paragraphs different possible erroneous calorimetry assumptions are discussed which makes logical sense. Then we come across a random dangling sentence/paragraph that mentions that if there are no nuclear products then this indicates that there most be a measuring error. However, we already have a section called "Lack of expected reaction products" which addresses the lack of nuclear products being a criticism of the current experimental results. The "Calorimtery errors" section should address specific calorimetry errors. --Guest2625 (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Some things cannot and/or should not be slotted into a precise category. The Huizenga text is making the point that even if a source of a calorimity error cannot be identified, such an error must exist if nuclear products are not detected. Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Sentences that do not logically belong to a section or article should not be added. Articles are not meant to just hang random junk from. I read the section as a noninvolved editor and right away could tell that this sentence does not logically belong. Reading through the edit history, and seeing the evolution of this sentence, it is quite clear that this is add on junk. The sentence was first added in this 31 July 2011 edit by POVbrigand as:

"John R. Huizenga who co-chaired the DOE 1998 panel stated simply a priori: 'Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat.'"

The usage of the word "simply" is a telltale sign that this was a nonneutral addition that was using the article to coatrack nonneutral content. This problematic edit was realized by Enric Naval in this 19 August 2012 edit. At this time, Enric Naval made the coatracked content neutral, giving the current version, and stated: "remove editorilizing and quoting out of context". Removing the nonneutral wording was good, but it would have been even better to just remove the coatracked material. As Guy stated above, unfortunately, alot of cruft has been crowbarred in over the years. Material that breaks the reading flow of an article has no place in a well written article and should be removed. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

APS session on cold fusion.

http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR16/Session/E11.9 Fritz194 (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

And? Guy (Help!) 23:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR16/Session/E9.9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:193:8100:48AA:18DD:CBAD:1384:7C24 (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cold fusion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/Appendix_1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cold fusion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111002143748/http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=222&content_id=WPCP_012362&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=5885551e-7f60-4185-a6f1-c4bfe8d5e26d to http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=222&content_id=WPCP_012362&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=5885551e-7f60-4185-a6f1-c4bfe8d5e26d

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

archive bot?

Anybody think that the archive bot is going a bit crazy? surely we should have some of the older discussions here on this page, even if no one has contributed in a while? Can we reset it so that it behaves based on page size rather than date? I'm not experienced with this so if someone else could help that would be great.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Andrea Rossi

How is it that Andrea Rossi is not mentioned anywhere in this article (except the see also section), despite the fact that nearly every article or story on cold fusion or LENR these days mentions him? Here are just a few examples of new stories that prominently feature Rossi:

https://www.inverse.com/article/14355-cold-fusion-is-news-again-but-the-search-for-the-energy-holy-grail-ain-t-over

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a18673/cold-fusion-essay/

https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-scientists-dismiss-the-possibility-of-cold-fusion?...

https://aeon.co/opinions/is-the-cold-fusion-egg-about-to-hatch

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a20454/in-cold-fusion-20-whos-scamming-whom/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a20874/us-house-cold-fusion/

Aren't we doing a disservice to our readers by avoiding mention of Rossi when he is pretty much the face of cold fusion at the moment? I suggest a new section on 'commercialisation' that outlines the prominent people/organisations attempting to commercialise LENR, as well as of course the criticism levelled at them.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

SPAWAR Systems Center -Pacific Pd:D Co-Deposition Research: Overview of Refereed LENR Publications

restored section deleted by LeadSongDog

Abstract Scientists at the US Navy SPAWAR Systems Center-Pacific (SSC-Pacific), and its predecessors, have had extraordinary success in publishing LENR papers in peer-reviewed journals. This success hasn’t come easily and is due to several factors. One key reason for this success was the courage of the SSC-Pacific upper management in allowing scientists to conduct research and publish results in a controversial field. The few journal editors, who had the fortitude to consider our work, also contributed to this success. This contrasts with the majority of their peers who, taking the path of least resistance, ignored our work out of hand and returned manuscripts with, ‘the subject matter is not in the purview of the journal’. The reviewers also played a role in the successful publication of LENR-related papers. A multitude of reviewers, many outside the LENR field, had to put aside their biases and look objectively at our data. In turn, the reviewers’ relentless concerns forced us to tenaciously address their issues. Ultimately, the SSC - Pacific team published 21 refereed papers in seven journals and a book chapter, spanning 19 years beginning in 1989. This paper is a brief synopsis of those publications.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242327687_SPAWAR_Systems_Center-Pacific_PdD_CoDeposition_Research_Overview_of_Refereed_LENR_Publications 84.107.129.188 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll have a read through this review article, from a glance it looks useful.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

US Armed Services Committee Report

Restored justification of their action Five Ws .. Who, What, Where/When WHY. Alanf777 (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It's the Congressional equivalent of "we've gotten word you're spending on this, come explain why in time for us to rub the administration's face in it during the election", buried deep in a massive budget document. It's certainly not a reliable source for science. We can wait until the report is made, as wp has wp:NODEADLINE. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If the house committee is saying we are "aware of recent positive developments in developing low-energy nuclear reactions" they aren't rubbing it in anyones face. Also note that this information was recently featured in popular mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a20874/us-house-cold-fusion/ So we don't have to rely on a primary source.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

How about taking the question to wp:RSN rather than edit warring to get your version in? For future reference, wp:BRD has only one "R". LeadSongDog come howl! 16:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It has been reported in popular mechanics... how is that not a reliable source?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

After all, we all have flying cars in the driveway, right? LeadSongDog come howl! 14:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Confusing terminology

The subject of this article is clearly "cold fusion" as the general public understands the term. The first problem is that there are room-temperature nuclear (fission) reactions, often naturally occurring. For example, in uranium mines, or when rocks and minerals get hit by cosmic rays. This may seem trivial, but this sort of thing has been studied by scientists trying to determined which rare elements occur naturally, if only in small amounts. For example, neptunium and plutonium are now classified as among the 94 naturally occurring chemical elements.

Next, there are a variety of (endothermic) cold fusion devices. The ones that involve muon-catalyzed fusion are a subset. The key concept here is "endothermic." These devices consume more energy than they produce. They were never intended to produce energy. Instead, they are used to make a variety of subatomic particles, such as neutrons, or to transform a few atoms of lighter elements into heavier elements for research purposes.

If you search Google Scholar for "cold fusion" (with quotation marks) and filter for papers published up to 1988, you will see that this was, and is, legitimate science.

This article is about "exothermic" cold fusion, i.e., trying to get more energy out than you put in.

Besides muon-catalyzed fusion, we have at least two other articles that deal with legitimate (endothermic) cold fusion: Fusor and Nuclear fission.

This is similar to the problem with Biophoton and Schumann resonances, two other legitimate scientific subjects that have come to be identified with pseudoscience or fringe science. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

A Fusor is not cold fusion, the ions are extremely energetic, and Nuclear Fission is the exact opposite of fusion. Muon Catalysed Fusion is listed clearly in the hatnote at the top of the article as being a different thing altogether. This article is mainly about the F/P experiment and the fallout in the scientific community afterward. What exactly is your point?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

A massive proponderance of scientific evicence says the effect is real. The only objections come from the hot fusion guys, who expect to see a different reaction and by products.

Organiclies (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The United States Navy's “SPAWAR Program” Reproduced P&F's Results Within a Year of the 1989 announcement.   U.S. Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, Pacific Group (SPAWAR), duplicated Pons and Fleischmann's work by 1990, and by 2009, had published 23 peer reviewed papers saying that the nuclear effect is real, that transmutation of base metals occurs, that tritium is produced, that excess heat is produced, and that low momentum neutrons are produced. Below is the video link that presents Navy's work results, it's a 1 hour and 3 minute presentation by the researchers who actually did the work. Early efforts at repeatability failed due to insufficient gas loading of the metal, which Navy overcame by co-depositing the gas and metal at the same time, onto the cathode. Currently NASA Langley has taken over the research, and are currently running grid testing of different materials to check for the same type nuclear reactions using more abundant metals and gas (Ni & H2). (NASA Langley Chief Scientists Zawodny and Bushnell).

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Video (2009)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2LV8rM7vn0

NASA Technology Gateway video on chief scientist Zawodny's work at NASA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBjA5LLraX0 American Chemical Society Press Briefing on Cold Fusion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHc3jOTJYZA 

The secret was and is to achieve a very high gas loading ratio into the metal lattice. (over 90%) Edits that claim an inabiliity to replicate P&F's results are simply incorrect. Hundreds of high level laboratories around the world now agree that it's a series of nuclear reactions. They are currently trying to correleate the energy released and transmutation results to match a theory that will let them profoundly exploit the reaction for our energy needs,,,that is to say,, ALL of our energy needs.

The labs which failed to duplicate Flieschmann's work, did not wait the hours or days or weeks required to load the D2 gas into the Palladium metals crystalline lattice as was required for the P&F method to work. Some left the cathode exposed to air instead of immersing it fully into the heavy water. Using the F&P method, the reaction took a long time to start, because electrically loading the gas into the metal is very slow,, Using Navy's co-deposition of gas and metal onto the cathode, results are immediate. Navy in their video above, claim very high repeatability and rapid start of their cold fusion cell.

U.S. Navy has two patents on the process that are not secret,, one is for the transmutation of nuclear waste into non radioactive metals. NASA has a patent on reliably starting and stopping the nuclear reaction. NASA has also started a seed project and funded an aerospace design company to build a spaceplane around this nuclear process, to take rockets to the edge of space for launching, where they would only need 20 to 40 thousand pounds of fuel to reach low earth orbit (LEO). NASA (Zawodny and Bushnell) have reported on this technology at various NASA and governemnt science labs.

Link to NASA Patent by Chief Scientist Joseph Zawodny: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110255645%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110255645&RS=DN/20110255645

The Navy has a patent on this which they have up for licensing, to reliably turn radioactive weste into stable, non-radioactive metals.

It could be time for Wikipedia to stop allowing edits to the Martin Fleischmann Wiki , Stanley Pons Wikei, and Cold Fusion Wiki, that imply that this most important work is invalid, and implying that the "cold fusion" reaction is/was unrepeatable. The sicence is in on this. It is in fact highly repeatable and the reaction now starts rapidly.

Scientific breakthroughs are not usually published on Youtube. Can you give a reliable source instead? You know, a peer-reviewed physics journal? If you can't, you should try to publish the stuff there. If you succeed, we can use it here.

Others have tried the shortcut youtube->wikipedia (without a scientific journal in between) before. It never works because not all Wikipedia editors were born yesterday. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the "only objections" come from the "hot fusion guys" - most scientists simply don't pay attention to this field. At this point AFAIK there is virtually no scientific criticism of Cold Fusion, because very few non-cold fusion scientists know enough about the experiments to critique them. As they say, "the silence is deafening".

In any case, YouTube is not a reliable source for this kind of claim (that would require peer-reviewed publication[s]). Unlike other fringe sciences cold fusion reports have been published in peer-reviewed journals; however, there is no indication that CF is gaining traction. See e.g. Mosier-Boss, P.A., Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, volume 12, page 1 (2013). Further, the loading ratio is already mentioned in the article, and was already known when DOE made its second review of the topic in 2004 (I quote, "According to the review document, D-D fusion has been demonstrated to occur spontaneously when D is introduced into Pd metal at very high concentrations (D/Pd ~ 0.95)"). So I think objectively CF remains a fringe field, and broadly speaking, the current treatment of the topic in this article is appropriate. Banedon (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Journal of Visualized Experiments as reliable source for CF

Would the Journal of Visualized Experiments articles be a reliable source to be cited in the situation that some CF articles be available in it?--79.119.208.208 (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Only if the results support the scientific consensus. It has very low Impact Factor, so can't be used to promote fringe views. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I say "yes". First, an impact factor of 1.325 is not low (comparatively, plenty of journals don't actually have impact factors). Second, it's still a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Banedon (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

An impact factor of 1.325 is certainly low. When considered against the set of journals that attempt to capture most or all of the natural sciences in their scope, it's out on the long tail. Consider the top tier Nature (IF 38.138) or Science (34.661); middle-tier PNAS (9.423) or Scientific Reports (5.228); lower-middle tier Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (4.039), PLOS ONE (3.057).... A challenge that faces all journals which attempt to cover the full breadth of science is that – to borrow a sports metaphor – they don't have as deep a bench. Their editorial boards are necessarily broad and shallow in their knowledge and areas of responsibility, rather than narrow and deep. Individual editors are less likely to have specific, direct knowledge of the topics of a given manuscript; low-impact journals in particular may have more difficulty locating and recruiting appropriate and effective referees. The result is that the quality of peer review for such journals can be very inconsistent, especially for the newer or lower-impact journals. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

When you compare against the top journals, every other journal appears "low". Here's another way of looking at it. As of time of writing, I'm seeing 11948 journals with impact factor (the lowest being "ECONTENT" with 0.013, the highest "Cancer Journals for Physicians" with 131.723). JOVE has a 2015 impact factor of 1.113, which places it at rank 6928 out of 11948, i.e. slightly below average at worst, and more likely completely average if one defines "average" as being within one standard deviation of the median. That's not counting all the journals out there without impact factors as well. Also remember that being published in a low impact factor journal does not mean the science is not sound; it more often means the science is not very interesting. For the same reason journals like Nature have published papers that later turned out to be wrong in the past (see e.g. water memory), but would have been very exciting if true. You are implying that journals published in JOVE are more likely to be unreliable compared to those published in higher IF journals, which is something I will need a reliable source to believe. It's not only not obvious to me, I find it borderline offensive (and I certainly would be offended, if I were an editor of one of the low-IF journals, since it implies I am not doing my job properly). I completely agree, though, that "which articles in support of which statements" is a key question to ask. Banedon (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You're getting a bit sloppy with 'median' versus 'average', which means a lot when you're looking at a distribution with a long tail. And yes, it's true that a lot of stuff in low-impact journals is simply low-importance and low-novelty, but that comes with two problems in the context of this discussion. First, if a result is unremarkable and the venue for publication is unimportant, it's less likely to be closely examined by reviewers. Reviewers are less likely to demand follow-up experiments and rigorous controls. (Having accumulated several rejections from high- and upper-middle-tier journals during my career, I've had plenty of opportunity to see how expectations change as one moves down to middle and lower-middle-tier venues.) In a journal with an impact factor around 1, most published papers aren't ever cited; editors, referees, and authors are all aware of this.

More significantly in the context of this discussion, a result that is genuinely supportive of the existence of cold-fusion processes isn't a low-importance or low-novelty result. If such a result appears in a low-impact (not just medium-impact) venue anyway, it's because the quality and persuasiveness of the work isn't sufficient to get it into a better journal. Superficially dramatic results that show up in low-impact journals are seldom reproducible. Low-impact journals which publish nominally "high-impact" results almost always aren't doing their jobs properly, and if they're offended by that reality it's their own fault. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Which article(s), in support of which statements? (Fundamental questions which should always be asked when a question of 'reliability' comes up.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. No point in arguing about impact factor unless we know what we are talking about.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that the issue of impact factor has been mentioned in this discussion. In this context we should consider and analyze comparatively the cases of some journals which have concrete articles collectively mentioned in article but also a relatively small impact factor around 3 or 4 like Journal of Physical Chemistry A, Journal of Physical Chemistry B, Journal of Physical Chemistry C. Some other journals with a smaller impact factor could be added like Zhurnal Fizicheskoi Khimii, JJAP, etc.--82.137.14.63 (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Ob. JoVE: https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/06/30/is-jove-just-another-spammer/ Guy (Help!) 01:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Association fallacy. Beall clearly states that JoVE is not on his list. Besides, even if JoVE were on his list, it is not the same as saying that everything published in JoVE is incorrect (another manifestation of association fallacy). Banedon (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have a proposed edit? Without proposed text, there is no point debating whether a source is reliable because no source is reliable for all possible statements. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Scientific American, December 2016

Possibly useful source:

• Krivit, Steven B.; Ravnitzky, Michael J. (2016-12-07). "It's Not Cold Fusion... But It's Something". Scientific American.

Note: This is a "blog" but it may qualify as a "new-blog."

This blog makes mention of several publications over the past few decades, including a2006 pubication by Lewis Larsen and Allan Widom in European Physical Journal C - Particles and Fields.

It also makes mention of publications in the 1910s and 1920s in "top scientific journals of the day, including Physical Review, Science and Nature" regarding unexplained changes in elements, including early evidence of what we now call tritium. Some of this early research was done by Nobel prize winners.

There is some concern that Krivit and Ravnitzky may have a stake in low energy nuclear reactions, which is why I struck out the "news-blog" line. However, the publications the article mentions which are in reliable sources may be of use in this article and related ones. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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). InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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))

By the way, do people realise that there are quite a few media articles and non-scientific literary works being used to make evaluations and conclusions about this topic? Because there is quite a bit - not just conclusions about the scientists being incompetent or making errors (lacking evidence), but viewpoints about the science itself. (2001:44B8:237:FE00:2839:3155:E69D:5257 (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cold fusion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130720173049/http://www.psfc.mit.edu/icf/Home%20Page/Papers/Petrasso_Nature.pdf to http://www.psfc.mit.edu/icf/Home%20Page/Papers/Petrasso_Nature.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130216190531/http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1862/tr1862-vol1.pdf to http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1862/tr1862-vol1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925131935/http://hosted.law.wisc.edu/lawreview/issues/2006-4/rislove.pdf to http://hosted.law.wisc.edu/lawreview/issues/2006-4/rislove.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/Appendix_1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Quote

A slow motion edit war is taking place right now we should discuss, I guess. The passage reads:

In May 2016, the [[United States House Committee on Armed Services]], in its report on the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, states that it is "aware of recent positive developments in developing low-energy nuclear reactions", and directed the [[United States Secretary of Defense|Secretary of Defense]] to "provide a briefing on the military utility of recent U.S. industrial base LENR advancements to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 22, 2016."

The question is whether the first included quote is worthy of inclusion. My argument is that this quote is largely acknowledging spin of the cold fusion researchers and, as such, its inclusion unduly WP:WEIGHTs the true-believer position. Without having the balance of the relevant (non-pathological) scientific community investigating this, to include this statement is akin to endorsing a position of Congress -- an institution that is not scientifically inclined -- as a meaningful statement about scientific progress.

jps (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I have to agree. Part of Congress's purpose is to tell the Executive Branch to report to it on various issues, large and small. - This function, in fact, dates back to the First Congress (e.g., surveys ordered in connection with the Western cessions). It is not particularly significant that Congress ordered a report such as this. Although such language is always couched in the language of the entire corporate body ordering the research, all it takes for such an order is a request to one congressperson to insert such language in a bill. The source does not make it clear that this was anything more than such ordinary WP:ROUTINE business for the Legislative Branch. By itself, it is not a significant development in the history of cold fusion. Unless the report back said that the DoD wanted Congress to authorize funding for significant research, the entire quote is not necessary or useful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess the next question is weather such a briefing occurred (before September 22, 2016) and what it contained. Perhaps something that was kept confidential? No idea on how to find info on this. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking through the record I find no sign of such a report being made. Perhaps they were a little preoccupied with electioneering at the time.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't have had to be a hearing. It could, in principle, have been a text briefing, right? And it could have been delivered well before September 22. *shrug* jps (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Those are called "Executive Communications" and you can see all 362 sent to the House Armed Services Committee in the 114th Congress by using the search options on the left side of here. I don't see anything about cold fusion or low energy nuclear reactions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

If we can verify that the hearing in question didn't occur, I'd say we should scrap the content. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

We need a staffer to comb through -- in principle it could have been a part of any of those 362 communications. None of us are paid enough. jps (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, is it usual for the SOD to ignore a direction from the United States House Committee on Armed Service? Or is the SOD required to do it?

I was not the originator of the content noted above. The reason I originally restored the content when it was removed the first time was because IMO the phrase "military utility of recent U.S. industrial base LENR advancements" doesn't make much sense to the reader without the context of "aware of recent positive developments in developing low-energy nuclear reactions" (i.e. why they are making the request). I'm all for removing the content if we can verify that the briefing never happened (it was scheduled during election time after all), but otherwise it represents a significant change in tone from the top level of US politics. Removing the "aware of positive" bit just because it makes LENR sound good doesn't make much sense to me. It is what they said after all, and clarity is improved with the addition of both quotes. No reason we can't rework the section to make it clear in a different way, but just removing the "aware of positive" bit by itself isn't an improvement IMO. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

If I remember correctly (and it's been a while since I was directly involved in this stuff, so I may be wrong) directives in Committee Reports such as this one are not legally binding on the Executive Branch unless they are incorporated into the parent legislation or the committee establishes an oversight or investigative hearing on the matter and orders the officials to attend. In the case of the latter, the hearings are under the control of the committee or sub-committee chairperson and can be scheduled or unscheduled as they want. Affecting whether oversight hearings take place or what they cover is part of the communications that Congresspersons and their staff have with lobbyists, Executive Branch personnel, other Congressional staff, etc. So it is entirely possible that the Armed Services Committee wrote this language into their report and then ignored it. We'd need confirmation from the staff of the Committee or one of the Committee members. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I suppose pretty much any US citizen with a vote would be within their rights to ask their representative to explain why their tax dollars are being spent on this. They in turn could get a reply from the staff. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Tunneling?

I seem to recall from that era that tunneling had been a central argument of F&P's theory, in overcoming the potential barrier issue. It is not discussed even once in this article. It wasn't some gratuitous add-on, rather: no tunneling, no cold fusion. What happened to that? Example:

Tunneling Effects On Low Energy Fusion Cross Sections (U) - Defense ... www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA214010 by CL Leakeas -1989 - ‎Related articles

"Heating and containing such high energy plasmas is far beyond the realm of technology today. However, because of a quantum mechanical effect known as "tunneling" or "barrier penetration" such temperatures are not necessary."

JohndanR (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2017

Hello there, my name is Zach and I'm an engineer working at YouTube. I wanted to update this wiki entry with some new developments that are being reported by some of our content creators on our platform.

Update:

Here is the text change that I'm proposing:

"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]"

->

"Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications."

Removes: "the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts."

Rationale: The claim is removed because it is not supported by the article cited:

Citation 5 points to the New York Times article: http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html

Fact: Pons-Flechman had reported neutron generation many times over the course of their five-year research product. Their assertion that they produced neutrons is incontrovertible. Additionally, this was supported by 3rd party scientists, which the article citation mentions:

"Some of the new experiments also sought to reproduce the less contentious findings on cold fusion reported independently by Dr. Steven E. Jones and his colleagues at Brigham Young University in Utah. Dr. Jones, who used a device similar to the one in the Pons-Fleischmann experiment, did not claim that any useful energy was produced. But he did report that slightly more neutrons were detected while the cell was operating than could be expected from normal sources. The result suggests at least the possibility of fusion"

"Dr. Dickens of Oak Ridge noted that Dr. Jones had used relatively crude neutron-detecting equipment, and had measured only a very small excess of neutrons over what could be expected from natural sources without any fusion."

So clearly, from these two sources mentioned in the original article, certain scientists did infact detected Neutron sources, which was the byproduct of nuclear transmutation.

QED

Thanks, Zach.vorhies (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Zach.vorhies (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Zach. These sort of edit requests are meant to take the form of proposing the wording/sources etc here, and then it will be added if appropriate. Specifically what wording (and sources to support that wording) are you proposing? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: QED is not just a fancy way of saying, "I'm right", as YouTube content creators and comments section denizens sometimes seem to think. It is an abbreviation of the Latin: "quod erat demonstrandum" or "that which was to be demonstrated". Your cites do not demonstrate that Pons and Fleischman ever actually produced excess neutrons and just saying "the assertion...is incontrovertible" does not make it so. Wikipedia runs not on arguments but on reliable sources, and reliable sources certainly do controvert those claims. See, for example, for a good summary of independent measurements of the missing excess neutrons. At least one of these replication studies was allowed to take place in Pons & Fleischman's own lab, using their own "CF cell" and found no such excess neutron production. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

References

"Dr. Dickens of Oak Ridge noted that Dr. Jones had used relatively crude neutron-detecting equipment, and had measured only a very small excess of neutrons over what could be expected from natural sources without any fusion."

It says it right here. The article uses linguistic tricks to try and say the opposite. Let me rephrase this into an alternative:

"Using a crude neutron-detecting equipment, we measured a very small excess of neutrons, above background levels."

I don't know why the New York Times would use the language they used. The sentence clearly states that neutrons from fusion are being detected. Here's 60 minutes saying the same thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTvaX3vRtRA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach.vorhies (talk • contribs) 07:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I still see the factually incorrect statement:

"the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts."

This is a fake news. This is directly contradicted by the source article. Neutrons were generated and detected. That's was their whole point of the announcement! And it was confirmed, according to the source listed!!! The statement "the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts" on Wikipedia is false. Having the statement remain hurts the integrity of Wikipedia.

I'm starting to suspect that you are playing gate keeper here. I live and work in Tech in San Francisco and I have access to the Wikimedia people. Do I need to dig into your history to figure out if you have a financial incentive to keep this lie in the article? What other lies do you play gate keeper to?

Zach.vorhies (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Please go for it. Complain at User talk:Jimbo Wales as well. However, you might first try to understand the point of WP:REDFLAG. Or, consider the big picture of Wikipedia rather than just the topic of cold fusion. Should readers be told "both sides" of issues such as the Moon landings or creationism or where Obama was born? Wikipedia is one place on the internet where reliable sources based on stuff that works have primacy. Re "dig into", bear in mind that attacking other editors is one of a small number of things that are not tolerated. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your logic is, at best, hard to follow. You think that a statement about Steven Jones' claims of evidence of detection of neutrons somehow contradicts the statement that Fleischmann and Pons did not? I must point out that those names refer to three different people. You do not seem to understand the concept of fake news. I'll give you an example - credulous stories about Steven Jones' theory that the collapse of the WTC was caused by a controlled demolition were fake news. --Noren (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Organiclies's proposed references

I'm starting a new section because the above has gotten completely unreadable. Organiclies started the above section with links to two patent applications and a non-peer-reviewed paper. They have since added links to a number of other papers and patents, mostly from the same group at the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR). What claims Organiclies intends us to understand he is making based on these in the above discussion debate beast complete mess are so opaque as to make vantablack look transparent. Having read through these cites, however, there is definitely justification to say that this group is continuing to try to develop Pons's and Fleischmann's initial work and therefore the Navy is pursuing cold fusion. Interestingly enough, the first sentence of the "United States" subsection of the "Current research" section currently says: United States Navy researchers at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego have been studying cold fusion since 1989. At the very most, these cites substantiate the claim that the research continues. Adding them to the cites following the quoted sentence would be acceptable, if redundant, but there I see no new claim that can be made based on these. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it is undeniable that the research continues, but it is not clear to me that it isn't just a one-off project that putters along because the researchers have what essentially amounts to tenure. The lab make-up is a bit opaque. I would like to know which scientists are behind the work, but, interestingly, it is a bit difficult to pin down the exact make-up of the group. I note as well that the UMizz group is similarly difficult to pin down. Does anyone know what's up with that? jps (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, the way forward is to evaluate these references and discuss them just as we would any other references, meanwhile completely ignoring any further interjections from Organiclies. It is clear at this point that responding to him in any way accomplishes nothing and sidetracks the discussion.

I have no problem with a claim that research continues. The Navy researches a whole boatload (pun intended!) of things that are almost certain to go nowhere but have a tiny chance of a result that would give us a huge military advantage. None of this research into fringe areas gets a lot of money, so it is essentially cheap insurance against missing something big.

What I would have a problem with is any implication that the Navy thinks that Cold Fusion is anything other than dead, pathological science. They never said anything of the sort. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Defense has a megabudget and they would be remiss to not spend a small amount on ideas that are probably fruitcake dead ends, but which would give a huge payoff if an extremely unexpected benefit occurred. The Men Who Stare at Goats shows that money was spent determining whether it was possibly to kill goats by staring at them. Cold fusion will receive accolades when a reproducible experiment shows that sustained energy, even if minuscule, can be produced. Johnuniq (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Currently that statement about Navy research is sourced to a few articles, the most recent of which is from 2009, so it could be helpful to provide more recent sources to show that it didn't stop sometime between then and now. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Could we just say "as of 2009, the Navy was..."? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I object to the inclusion of a ref to NASA/TM-2015-218491 per the reason I gave above: it failed to be replicated. The ref that I found also supports the contention that the Navy effort has not succeeded. --mikeu ^talk 03:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Mu301's argument, but would be inclined to allow it if it is clearly documented with a citation to a RS that is failed replication. My reasoning is that the same cold-fusion POV pushers who want this article to support their bullshit are no doubt doing the same elsewhere on the Internet using the same citation. In such case it is best to mention the citation and why it doesn't say what the pseudoscientists claim it says rather than leaving it out and leaving the user to assume that we simply missed it --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

If we do that, which sounds like a good idea to me, we should proactively document it through an RfC. That way, it's clear why the article says what it does and it can be pointed to later down the line when this resurfaces. A 30-day RfC is a bit of a waste of time in the short term, I admit, but I believe it will save time in the long run. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Those are good points. I don't object to inclusion under those terms. The Rob Davies paper was not published in a peer reviewed journal but the research was conducted at JPL under contract with NASA (who funded the first two papers.) Thus it looks like all three are part of the same research program, though this is not explicitly stated in the documents beyond the note that all were NASA funded. I would consider it a RS. I might be inclined to slightly reword "have been studying cold fusion since 1989" to "began studying" or some such language. We don't know if this is continuous/ongoing or just sporadic research. The current language implies the former. I don't have a strong opinion, though. --mikeu ^talk 16:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Two New NASA Research Papers and Patent Application:

This is clearly not moving forward and there is no consensus for adding anything based on the reported sources.

Pons & Fleischmann used deuterated metal in their experiements. Here NASA and some of the Navy SPAWAR and JWK International, and Pinesci team have continued the science and have initiated a nuclear reaction using beam energies that were not previously considered by most outside physicists, to be high enough to cause a nuclear reaction. Control, (un-deuterated), metals were used as experimental controls, exposed to the beams, and didn't react. Deuterated metals created isotopes when exposed to beam and NASA were able to create a beta emitter that has lasted "for over 12 months". This seems an important milestone in understanding and legitimizing Pons & Fleischmann's work. P & F's work led SPAWAR to start working on it, and then the work went to NASA facilities at NASA Glenn,due to radiation concerns. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170002584.pdf low energy photon exposure of deuterated metals https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170002544.pdf x ray exposure of deuterated metals International patent application on the process, over 100 page application. Patent application should be available on the appropriate U.S. government patent office site. http://e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2017.09.14-Published-Application-1663.0002PCT3.pdf 71.66.237.229 (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies @71.66.237.229:, the claim that these "legitimize" Pons & Fleischmann is unsustainable synthesis. Not only do they not reference those authors, but also their work has nothing to do with either the original version of cold fusion or any subsequent formulation. They clearly identify that their investigations are related to Radioisotope thermoelectric generator research, a well-understood and concrete technology that NASA has used 1961 for powering satellites, space probes, etc. Saying that the mere mention of deuterated metals = cold fusion is as unsupported as saying that any research using heavy water is related to cold fusion. There is no reason to include unrelated research in this article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC) Eggishorn, kwhen you energize deuterated metals, that's the very definition of cold fusion. The US Patent Office will not grant any patent using the term "cold fusion" so the patents use other descriptions these days, including NASA's patents, notice I used the pluaral of the word "patents". NASA hasn't used deuterated metals in their thermoelectric generators , they use Uranium or worse. This work gives them a generator they can launch into space and there is zero risk of causing widespread radiation contamination over large areas. Same goes for an unwanted re-entry and burn up in the atmosphere. After a firestorm of patent conflicts grinds them to a halt the patent office will have to eventually reverse their policy towards Pons and Fleischmann/Cold Fusion, and credit someone with the invention, that will probably occur when the process is powering their homes, cars, trains, aircraft, space vehicles, and industry. The work sites Tritium production, which is due to D-D fusion and nothing else. In the papers I linked to, they are using deuterated metals, it doesn't matter how the metals are deuterated or energized, what matters is the process and the nuclear nuclear processes are the same. Hundreds of papers make it clear that once the metal is deuterized past 90%, of saturation you can apply nearly any type of energy to cause nuclear activity to begin. So the method of initiation has choices. NASA likely chose x-rays and photons to create beta emitters in order to directly funnel beta into an electrical system, as in a beta battery and to make medical isotopes. The papers and patent clearly discuss that this process might provide for every energy need, and create medical isotopes, and heat and/or beta batteries for deep space probes that travel too far away from the sun for solar panels to work, and remediate nuclear waste into non radioactive metals. JWK International are part of the work as is Pam Mosier-Boss, both were on the U.S. Navy SPAWAR efforts and the 26 or so papers they published since 1990 saying the process is nuclear, makes isotopes, makes other elements (transmutation), makes gamma, makes beta, and makes excess heat. The SPAWAR researches knew Pons and Fleischmann in 1989, and called them on the phone to ask how to duplicate their results, which is something the other scientists who failed, didn't do, or didn't listen to what they were told. SPAWAR didn't want to wait weeks or months for the Deuterium to work it's way into the atomic lattice)space between atoms) of the metal (electrochemical gas loading) so they employed a process called co-deposition,, in which the Deuterium and Palladium are laid down on the cathode by electrochemical action of Palladium and Deuterium salts in deuterated water, in a mix that equivocates to a high level of gas loading. It's simeply a different method of deuterating the metal. There would be no Navy SPAWAR work without Pons and Fleischmann and their would be no NASA work on this without Navy SPAWAR. This is a direct line of work with the same researchers involved who derived their knowledge from Pons and Fleischmann. It's an unbroken chain, the only difference is how they achieved loading and the method they use to start the reaction. If NASA failed to cite P&F, it's likely due to patent office's firm policy of denying anything that uses the term "cold fusion" as a claim. Citing P & F in a patent application is still a bad idead due to patent office policy. Nobody doubts that one of the reactions is D-D fusion. Tunneling and superconductivity are often mentioned as the means by which the D-D are able to fuse. This reaction in select Deuterium gas loaded metal can be started by electricity, pulsed electricity, plasma, physical shock, particle bombardment, heat, weak laser, e-rays and just about anything that applies energy. So the method of initiation isn't critical to the reaction nor is the method of achieving >90 gas loading. The method (codeposition)used by SPAWAR, of getting the gas into the spaces between metal atoms makes the reaction start in a reasonably short time with very high repeatability. The research team in this paper have members who started their deuterated metal experiments with P&F 's instructions on how to do the work. They improved on it, but the results are the same, excess heat, low energy neutrons, gamma, beta, isotopes and the transmutation of one element into several other elements as published by many other labs. There is D-D fusion, but it's not accomplished with the massively high pressures and temperatures that hot fusion requires. The current work on this with NASA and SPAWAR scientists, and JWK Intenational and Pinesci Consulting, could easily yield a working theory that allows for engineering of energy production devices. The classified result of this line of work that has continued since 1990 is likely a large set of volumes. Science and history will tie this work directly back to Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. There's a clear line of communication per the head of SPAWAR in his research groups presentation at U of Missouri and other places, which is on YouTube and which I've posted on the Pons Wiki. This is the Navy Spawar chief's video with his researchers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2LV8rM7vn0 See video in beginning and at 59:15 for credit they gave to Pons and Fleischmann. P & F helped SPAWAR on a battery electrochemistry issue. Pam Mosier-Boss of the Navy Spawar effort is also in this work as is Larry Forsley of JWK Intl. The head of he Navy SPAWAR effort gives credit to Pons and Fleischmann every time he speaks, as do most all researdhers who have advanced the field of study. Organiclies (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiclies (talk • contribs) 21:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC) Ok, I just read through those two papers, and I didn't see any statement that screamed fusion to me, what did I miss? Why did it have to be that particular type of nuclear reaction? Which nuclei were said to be transmuted into which heavier ones? Finally, what edit is being proposed? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC) In the photon bean paper, they saw triple tracks that were identical to those seen in D-T fusion reactors using the same neutron detectors. In the paper on X-ray beam, they saw observed energy consistent with Tritium. (page 22 {"beta activity consistent with Tritium" last paragraph) There was only Deuterium and the target solids/metals present, so the reaction is likely to be either D-D or D-T (Tritium),, and then I'd wonder where the Tritium came from if not from D-D fusion. The nuclear reactions as easily seen by the isotopes created here and elsewhere , are numerous. Pons & Fleischmann were pushed into calling it fusion, they knew it was nuclear but wanted to study it more before they announced and identified it. They were pushed into prematurely announcing by the university. However they did make nuclear reactions happen in a test tube at room pressure using deuterated metal, and close enough to room temperature ,, when compared to the astronomical pressures and temperatures required for hot fusion. The majority of the text on the main page is negative and inaccurately paints a picture of failure and dishonesty, and a career topped off by shame, none of which is deserved based on the facts as now known. Instead the page should give main focus to pointing out that P & F opened up a completely new branch of study in nuclear physics, which Navy SPAWAR took up via Pons and Fleischmann,and carried to NASA,, which now has these patents and papers. NASA's papers might require a year or years more to get peer reviewed, but they were done with controls and by qualified scientists who (in the papers) invite communication from the scientific community. Neither NASA nor SPAWAR would dared to release such studies without very high confidence in the accuracy. They have to worry about public relations, lest they lose funding. The patents NASA and Navy have on this took a lot of time from both legal staff and scientists and clerical staff, so there should be little doubt. There's now no doubt that highly deuterated metals can be fairly gently hit with just about any form of energy to initiate nuclear reactions. Pons and Fleischmann's work has been improved upon, but they are the foundation of this whole new branch of physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiclies (talk • contribs) 02:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC) You say "... and then I'd wonder ... if not ..." and "There's now no doubt that ..." but you don't seem to grasp that this is YOUR original synthesis from the papers. We can't do that here. We have to wait for someone credible to say it in a reliable source publication. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC) The important thing is not what I'm saying, the important thing is what the NASA-Navy work is saying. NASA research is highly trusted in the U.S. and in the world, so a link to the paper should be on the Article page. The NASA work is precisely relevant because they're using deuterated metals with a modest input of energy to start nuclear reactions with millions of times more energy density than any known chemical process. Currently the Article page expresses mostly just doubt. NASA has just verified that they've created nuclear reactions , utilizing no radioactive fuel, a modest input energy, and yet showed these multiple nuclear reactions. How much funding does Wikipedia receive from the fossil fuel industry, the electric utility industry? The question is relevant because this is an obvious disruptive technology. Is there a political motive at Wikipedia to minimize this field of research? Does Wikipedia have an editor whose also a physicist so that he might review this NASA research? organiclies 71.66.237.229 (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC) A link to the research papers and patent should be provided on the main page, you can express copious doubt about the links after you place them, but your readers deserve a chance to see this research. 71.66.237.229 (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies If readers "deserve" anything, it is articles that comply with the core content policies, which the proposed additions do not. Specifically, they fail both the neutral point of view test by attempting to inject false balance and the verification test since the advocated text uses non-expert synthesis to attempt to draw conclusions that are not stated within the sources originally offered. This is not the place to advocate for the acceptance or the importance of cold fusion research. There are numerous alternative outlets where you are free to post whatever you wish without such "copious doubt". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC) We don't serve readers or truth nor science by using rules to block very important NASA work which is obviously utilizing the essence of cold fusion. Does Wiki have and editor who has training in physics that can be called upon please? 71.66.237.229 (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies I have "training in physics". That doesn't change Wikipedia's core content policies, nor the fact that your proposed changes to the article do not comply with them. Find a reliable source that says what the NASA does there is cold fusion, then we can talk. Huon (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC) How much education in physics do you have Huon? We're in a "catch 22" situation here where editors won't consider peer reviewed research poster in scientific journals that are not to their liking,, and the more read journals won't print very high quality peer reviewed positive studies showing that deuterated metals undergo nuclear reactions when hit with modest initiation energy (cold fusion). What are the qualifications for a journal to meet Wikipedia's standard of belief? At the same time editors refuse to permit research by one of the most highly vetted research organization on the planet, namely NASA. Editors certainly understand that this is exacerbated by the effect of decades of scorn from the molded scientific community that refused to consider tunneling effects and low momentum neutrons, even though these effects are uncontested in physics and require no new physics to be invented. Should such a catch 22 policy be allowed to censor work by one of the most respected research houses on the planet? It's a circular game of denial as in a catch 22 scenario. It's indisputable that the studies that claimed to disprove the nuclear reaction(s) known as cold fusion, have in fact themselves been entirely discredited as false, or in the case of M.I.T, intentionally rigged, as proven in civil court. The entire notion that there's doubt about cold fusion has been proven scientifically to be wrong by hundreds of papers published in many scientific journals that the editors don't like. Is it the policy at Wikipedia that only a Journal Nature study will be acceptable. If that's the case there's a lot of editing to do across Wikipedia. I'd like to call for a reconsideration of editorial policy on cold fusion edit submissions, and, that editors understand that the notion that cold fusion is a false and pariah science is something this page helps to proliferate, contributing to the public's misunderstanding of this important field of research. The fact that highly read journals won't (yet) publish the work and many physicists are absolutely fearful they'll damage their careers by engaging in cold fusion research, makes clear the importance of Navy and NASA's scientific claims. Both agencies make their claims in an environment of disbelief and scorn from the hot fusion and fission community, and the fossil fuel industry. Extraordinary evidence: it's been published 100's of times in journals editors don't like, published work by many government labs and universities around the world, by hundreds of career scientists, who risk their careers to publish their work. They show nuclear effects when deuterated metals are hit with a modest initiation energy that would otherwise have no effect unless the metal is highly deuterated. That's cold fusion. 71.66.237.229 (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies Does Wikipedia have an editor who is an actual physicist with an advanced degree in physics? 71.66.237.229 (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies Yes, several, in fact, for all the good it may do you. It's entirely irrelevant to the question at hand because your sources don't say what you want them to say. It's no good to try to explain away their lack of using the terms "cold fusion" if you want to use them to support the idea that they are studying cold fusion -- they still don't say "cold fusion". No matter how many times you assert you think that this research meets your definition of cold fusion, unless the sources themselves say they are studying cold fusion, the sources aren't about cold fusion. Period. That's why we keep referring to the core content policies and particularly the very firm prohibition on original research, which is what everything above is. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC) @Eggishorn. By that rationale there should be a separate article on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. But such a proposal has been shot down multiple times. Either Low Energy Nuclear Reactions are a synonym for the concept of cold fusion (reliable sources commonly equate the two), or they aren't and we should have another, separate article on the former. We can't have it both ways. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC) @Insertcleverphrasehere:, I'm not quite understanding the point you make about trying to have it both ways. The WP:SYN nature of the proposed edits is pretty clear (example: "...kwhen (sic) you energize deuterated metals, that's the very definition of cold fusion..." which appears nowhere in any of the sources) and has been commented on by LeadSongDog and Huon as well as myself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Eggishorn I'm not talking about content of the the proposed edits, I'm talking about your comment above where you said that the sources about Low Energy Nuclear Reactions are not about cold fusion. They are. The terms are structural synonyms; and pretty much all researchers simply stopped using "cold fusion" years ago in favour of what they believe to be a more accurate and less stigmatised term. I'm not supporting the proposed edits, but the sources look fine to use in the article (in some way): LENR=CF, that's all I was saying. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC) @Insertcleverphrasehere:, the three sources that Organiclies don't identify as having anything to do with low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) either. Low-energy photons are not the same thing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Eggishorn. Low energy photon beams causing nuclear activity. You are correct with regard to the exact term "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" not being used in those words in these sources, but that is semantics. Perhaps we should create a new article "List of experiments to have found evidence of nuclear activity at low energies" in which to use these sources? (rhetorical--not serious about this) Be serious here, these experiments are clearly related to the same field of study. Perhaps an additional section entitled "other experiments" would be the best way to include these experiments without having to result in fracturing the article topic. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 10:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Whose on first? no, Whose on second! Circular illogic I'm afraid. You well understand why the articles and patents don't use the term "cold fusion",, if you don't I'd suggest a physicist with some experience in electrochemistry and a knowledge of tunneling and some years under his belt,, but not too jaded to read the papers and patent (s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.237.229 (talk) 10:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Organiclies (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Organiclies @Organiclies:, just as your sources continue to not say what you want them to say, I am not saying what you want me to be saying. I never said, for example, that I "...well understand why the articles and patents don't use the term 'cold fusion'..." I said that you ..."try to explain away their lack of using the terms 'cold fusion'..." Build and burn all the straw men you want, the actual policies have not and will not change to accommodate your understanding of the subject. Your request for the exact expert that will agree with your position are equally inapt. The policies are what the policies are and the policies ask that the articles say what the sources say, not what we wish the sources said or what we interpret the sources as saying. This essay describes this situation very well at this point. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC) It seems apparent that editors to date are either unable or unwilling to examine the clear evidence presented in the papers, and to recognize that certain terms can't be used in papers that scientists hope will be published. Just as wiki has put the cold fusion page into a sewer category that editors can't remove it from. I'll say it again Eggishorn, when you energize deuterated metals, or even some we consider non-metals, you get a nuclear reaction and that is by definition cold fusion and it's what Pons and Fleischmann did, Navy took it up, it was moved to NASA , and that's what they did. NASA deuterated metals and hit them with initiation energy and caused nuclear reactions. Navy has published 26 times, 23 times by 2009 or so. So you don't believe the Navy's numerous publications? You won't listen to videos by the head of the Navy research lab, and by the scientists who actually did the work for Navy, where they credit Pons and Flieschmann very openly and warmly even. You perhaps don't believe that the work was then focused at NASA Glenn, which produced the two recent papers. You could watch NASA's two or three NASA Technology Gateway videos, or the slideshow they gave at NASA Glenn. You could listen to a video of head of Navy labs saying their work was shut down due to radiation concerns. The Navy video shows Navy measuring elemental transmutations, free neutrons, excess heat. If editors are prohibited from removing cold fusion from this undeserved category of crackpots, they should say so, and suggest who can, what wikipedia process can. Shouldn't editors do the work and understand the issues, instead of just relying on rules that in this case don't serve the truth. How about you tell me exactly what you would need to hear, as you respond, please be very specific. Please also tell me why the Navy and NASA work isn't cold fusion as performed by Pons and Feischmann. NASA's work clearly stands on the shoulders of Pons and Fleischmann, even though they can't cite his work, and you know they can't if they want to be published in a journal that's very widely read. This science very likely has world changing benefits for the entire world, editors should read and understand the papers and if they can't, pass it to a serious physicist editor, because clearly you have not done so. Oh, and by the way, my understanding of the topic is pretty good. You haven't even attempted to grapple with the meat of the papers. Instead editors are standing on a policy that says this science isn't real, that it's crackpot science and so continuing to give a completely false impression to readers of cold fusion related wiki's. Editors are engaged in absolute evasion of the facts as presented in the papers, and are unwilling or unable to see that the works are fundamentally the same producing different nuclear effects as different deuterated metals are selected. It's deuterated metal that's energized, that's Pons and fleischamnn. The the U.S. Navy and NASA are saying it's real and it's nuclear, but Wikipedia won't listen to a video to hear Navy give credit to Pons and Fleischmann. Editors need to suck down a beer and learn about this topic and remove cold fusion from the category you've placed it in. You've categorized it into a category that no editor has the ability to retrieve it from, and so the public blindly believes that cold fusion was a fraud. Categorized as it is, wiki is locked into deceiving the public. Wiki shouldn't act like a church burning scientists alive. Wiki should read and understand the science presented, and the videos by Navy and NASA if they are to ever hope to understand how to referee this page. Wiki should remove this topic from the witchcraft category that it is in, and I doubt that editors can do that. Come on wiki management, please take a look at this and take this topic out of the category of witchcraft and fairies. I'm ashamed for you guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.237.229 (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC) 71.66.237.229 (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies I'd happily spend a day with management on Skype to show you whats going on with "cold fusion", a name coined by the press. Make it someone with an open mind and has the ability to remove this topic from the nutjob category you have it in. 71.66.237.229 (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies For the last time, I don't care how often you say that this is "clearly" cold fusion. No-one cares how often you say this is "clearly" cold fusion. Not even Jimbo Wales cares how often you say this is "clearly" cold fusion. Unless the sources you offer say they are about cold fusion, then they don't say they are about cold fusion. That's as far as it goes. Explain your way around that all you want, your explanations and my explanations and Huon's explanations and anyone you care to name's explanations are all worthless. It doesn't matter if the sources don't say what you want them to say and no matter how many times you plea for understanding or ask for open minds or blame the energy lobbies or deploy whatever other ad hocism you want to use, the text of those papers doesn't change. Today they day exactly what they did months ago and they'll continue to say the same thing a year from now. They didn't say then that they are investigating cold fusion or low-energy nuclear reactions or any other term connected with this article and they won't suddenly say that at some point in the future. Bring some source that says they are investigating cold fusion, and then you have an argument. All else is just wasted verbiage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Question. Do the papers mentioned here by the IP mention Cold Fusion at all? It's just that the IP seems to think they do. Can anybody clear this up for me? Perhaps in added emphasis formatting? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 06:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC) A simple text search reveals that the papers only ever use the term "fusion" in the introduction, which provides backgrounds on the materials used and states that deuterium is lightweight, stable, and commonly used for inertial confinement fusion. For all I know, the papers really could be about cold fusion but simply using some other term to describe it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Dear editors, Pons and Fleischmann didn't use the term cold fusion, that term was coined by the press. You're point is not a point at all. So, since the term does not belong to P & F, you have to consider what there technique was. Their technique was to apply initiation energy to deuterated metal. This isn't that hard guys. 71.66.237.229 (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies If these papers are related to the sort of reactions described by Fleischmann and Pons, then there must be a source somewhere that says as much. A press release, or an article in some scientific publication, or just a description in a newspaper. It's been quite some time since they were published, if they're as important as you say they are then you'd think there would be some independent confirmation of your claims. You could very easily end this discussion and convince other editors of the righteousness of your arguments. Simply find a reliable source that describes these NASA papers as related to cold fusion, or low energy nuclear reactions, or whatever term identifies them as concretely related to the subject of this article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Here is a quick find where a NASA researcher and an associate credit Pons and Fleischmann , page 2, ""LENR's history can be traced back to Pons and Fleischmann... "" Link: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150000549.pdf Very few people knew about this latest NASA work, it hasn't hit the newspapers at all. The NASA papers I posted clearly show they are using deuterium loaded metal and applying an activation energy, clearly doing LENR. Activation energy can be nearly anything, dc current, magnetism, heat, pressure, laser, sonoluminescence and as NASA used this time, X-rays and photons. What's important is that the metal (and some non-metals) be deuterated to a high degree, then energy of most any sort, applied. The papers in question clearly state that that is exactly what they did at NASA. Here is one of the Navy researchers speaking about why MIT and Caltech failed to reproduce Pons and Fleischmann's work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y789MlhCCgo (6 minutes) He is talking about the moment that Navy became interested in ""cold fusion"" and how they got he/they got it to work. NASA jumped on about the same time but only Navy published twenty some papers over the next 25 years. Now NASA has been going public with videos and slideshows on this for years, and because they don't want the negative connotation with cold fusion, they don't use the term "cold fusion" . In the paper they give it the very protracted name,,, nuclear effects in deuterated metalss when exposed to... NASA chief scientist Joseph Zawodny went out of his way to learn how to do LENR (cold fusion) from the Widom and Larsen team, which Zawodny speaks of in one of his videos. The current theoretical guy NASA is using is Vladamir Pines, NASA valued his work so much they invoked national security to make sure he was the sole contractor for developing the theory. He's important. By definition, when you highly deuterate metal and hit it with initiation energy , you are doing cold fusion/LENR proper, if you use the right metals, do it right... Some researchers also call it, "anomalous effects in deuterated metals",, think it was Navy. All the researchers have made sure they don't use the term "cold fusion in their paper submissions and/or patents. Keep in mind that the type and amount of energy and transmutations produced, will vary with the materials used for a lattice and the catalysts used, and he activation energy. So the nuclear reactions will vary with the reactants used. Any arguments about whether one of the many theories is correct, are premature, and several of them might have gotten some of it right. Nobody knows for sure yet except NASA and Vladimir Pines. Seems they know enough to make a beta battery and make useful isotopes per the works in question. Regardless of the theories proposed by anyone in history, nobody has come forward yet to say this or that one is a good fit, Widom Larsen was the closest. If P & F said that magic fireflies caused the reaction and NASA says its from magic bunnies, it doesn't detract from the fact that they are deuterating metal and applying energy to start a nuclear reaction. Organiclies (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies "This paper does not explore the feasibility of LENR and assumes that a system is available." So. Shrug. jps (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Hello jps, Yes, the reason I posted that link was to fulfill a request by Red Rock Canyon for a link that showed NASA crediting Pons and Fleischmann for LENR. So I posted it. That paper was a report on the feasibility of using LENR for flight, but it contained what Red Rock Canyon asked for. Their task was not to do the research, but the feasibility study of LENR for flight based on its energy density, etc. Obviously a NASA document on a NASA website. So I fulfilled the request. The new papers describe using deuterated metals with an outside energy applied to initiate the nuclear reactions. That's what P & F did. NASA took this up about the same time Navy did per the 6 minute video in the post above, which is by Melvin Miles of Naval Labs. There's also twenty something peer reviewed and published studies by Navy saying it's nuclear, it gives heat, it transmutes elemental metals, gives neutrons, and gamma There's also a 1 hr and 3 minute video on YouTube by the Navy team that did the actual laboratory work, the first speaker is head of the Naval Lab, he credits Pons and Fleischmann too and describes the errors made by those who discredited P & F. Organiclies (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies Here is yet another link describing a "debt owed" to Pons and Fleischmann by Navy SPAWAR in a presentation at a seminar at U of Missouri: research.missouri.edu/vcr_seminar/U%20of%20Mo/spawar.pp select slide number 65 on the left. All the slides are informative. Though Navy found a better codeposition method, they acknowledge that they owe a debt to Pons and Fleischmann. Though Navy changed the method of codeposition, they were building off Pons and Fleischmann's work and they repeatedly, publicly, have acknowledged that fact. . Organiclies (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies Let them publish in a top-tier journal and actually explain cold fusion. Until then, I'm going to keep rolling my eyes. jps (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC) What I said was, "Simply find a reliable source that describes these NASA papers as related to cold fusion, or low energy nuclear reactions, or whatever term identifies them as concretely related to the subject of this article." Neither of those sources you linked even mentions the NASA papers you're trying add to this article. Additionally, that youtube video is not reliable for anything other than the views of Dr. Melvin Miles, and the Application of LENR paper is another primary source. Right now you're trying to get a primary source added to this article purely on the strengths of connections you yourself are making, completely unsupported by any reliable source. As per WP:PRIMARY Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Wikipedia is not the place to publish cutting-edge research or to post original analysis of primary sources. Unless there's a specific connection established by reliable secondary or tertiary sources, these papers are useless. If you want to say "NASA is progressing in research of LENR", then it's not enough to just find some study published by NASA and claim that it's related to LENR - you have to have sources making that connection. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Right about the time hell freezes over NASA will issue a press release saying this new work is related to Pons and Fleischmann and cold fusion, or when their patent is approved, or when they no longer have to worry about getting funding cuts by flat-earthers whose election campaigns are funded (legalized bribery) by large fossil fuel companies. I see Wikipedia has no links to the Navy's 20 some peer reviewed published studies saying cold fusion is real, it's nuclear it makes heat, isotopes, transmutations, neutrons, etc.. No links to the videos by Navy researchers who do the work. Why is that? Wikipedia appears to be acting as a censor for reasons hidden. Anyone reading the Navy papers or viewing their videos, with a smidgen of consciousness would see that it's really important. But censored here. Red Rock Canyon: anytime you deuterate metal , apply some energy, and get a nuclear reaction, you're doing cold fusion as the world understands it. Melvin Miles of Naval Research Labs replicated Pons and Fleischmann's work many times, but you won't watch a 6 minute video to see that, or to hear him credit Pons and Fleischmann. I'm sure he has papers on that, would they be allowed? The new Navy work, is clearly deuterating metal and applying activation energy. But wiki rules want peer review, fine, but you could mention the work and provide a link and state that it requires peer review, and express plenty of doubt, like you did on Fleischmanns page and on this Article page. At the very least Wikipedia should link to 20 something peer reviewed Navy studies. Is that allowed? Red Rock, anyone who can read would see that the the NASA work is a direct result of Pons and Fleischmann's work. It's simply this::::: deuterating metal, applying energy, getting nuclear activity. So Wiki's objections are irrational. There are certainly sections on the Article page where this work can be mentioned, and then deep boisterous, even outrageous doubt can be expressed and Wikipedia can get another check from Murray or Koch. The links to Navy's work certainly do also belong on the main page. For the NASA work peer review, we can wait for hell to freeze over or for the press to educate the public, in which case Wikipedia won't be telling them anything they don't already know. Maybe that's the intent. Wiki needs to understand that the press coined the phrase "cold fusion" and that it refers to P&F deuterating metal, applying energy, and so starting nuclear activity. They further need to look at Melvin Miles work for Naval Research Labs, where he exactly duplicated Pons and Fleichmann's work , found excess heat and measured Helium 4,a clear indication of nuclear activity. Miles knew Fleischmann!! So P&F's work has been duplicated, not just by Miles, but by many researchers in many labs around the world, 100's of times. Wiki's censorship of Pons and Flieschmann replications and "cold fusion", should be noted by readers and they should explore the topic with sources other than Wikipedia, unless or until this illogical bias is fixed. I'm naive enough to have believed Wikipedia could objectively look at this, but failure to include the peer reviewed and published duplications by the Navy and many others, is sad, so sad, so very sad. (Thanks to our glorious leader) Please justify why you can't even post a link to the new NASA work and elaborate that it might not soon receive peer reviewed, because Wiki has helped keep a monumentally important field of physics in tin foil hat Flatearth-ville, with gooney bird clusters. Then disclose your reasons for doing so, the real reasons, not the editorial policy rules that you apply only when you want to silence something. Who will get funding for the peer review in a study that took years to plan and complete, for what most scientists view as a ""pariah science"", a view Wikipedia has helped to convey? If they do the work they'll not get tenure, not advance in career, not get hired elsewhere. Come on you guys, post the links and then express those enormous doubts that suffocate any research that angers your funders or fossily political views, or are due to unwillingness to read the papers or watch the testimonial videos by scientists. I almost suspect that Wikipedia is influenced by, and receives a large amount of money from the fossil fuel sector. Is it Wikipedia's intention to block the public's view of an incredibly important trail of scientific research that could change everything, everywhere, for everybody? Cash your check then. Selective enforcement of the Wikipedia rules, used to black out the Navy work, is highly suspect. I don't mind most marine mammals. But sea lions? I could do without sea lions.[4] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Yes Guy, it seems futile , they won't show the public what could be the most important pieces of science on energy that the world has ever seen. Worse, they insist on casting copious amounts of doubt about the reality of "cold fusion", even after Navy's 20 some peer reviewed and published papers, and the new NASA papers and patent, and hundreds of replications around the globe of P&F. What do you suggest, want to help? Organiclies (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies You're clearly in the wrong place. You see, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum to spread the truth that sinister forces have been hiding from the world. Go do that somewhere else. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC) LOL,, no sinister forces, just people apparently unwilling to read papers and explore the science, and what is very very obvious, that "cold fusion" has been replicated hundreds of times with success, with peer review, and that anytime you deuterate metal and hit it with energy and get heat or physical effects that are by their nature and/or amplitude, nuclear, its because Pons and Fleischmann provided the foundation of it. Go Away Sea Lions,, lol, it goes both ways Guy. Scientists are hobbled from crediting the discoverers of a new branch of physics. That should make a good Wiki page. Guy should post a cartoon where neither the seal nor human can see or hear,, nor speak apparently. So we can all just wait for the newspapers, that will happen before anyone does a peer review. So Red Rock,, will you post donations from fossil fuel interests for the last 5 years or so? Why isn't 20 some years of Navy work present on this site,, the peer reviewed published studies they did? Clearly I've shown that Navy credits Pons and Fleischmann. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiclies (talk • contribs) 10:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC) @Organiclies. First, please sign your posts using ~~~~ at the end. Second: Primary sources such as those you have provided are not generally used in articles like these to make sweeping changes, generally we are looking for reliable secondary sources. Not necessarily newspapers, but reliable sources commenting on the work done by others. The problem with Cold Fusion, LENR, CENR or whatever new name is invented this week, is that reliable secondary sources supporting it are hard to come by. I suggest reading about the reputation trap which seems to have thoroughly locked CF/LENR out of reliable secondary sources. As a result, hardly anything is written about CF anymore, and peer review is routinely denied for anything even remotely touching on the topic. Wikipedia does not write the truth, it represents what reliable secondary sources write about topics. Regardless of how you or I feel about it, reliable secondary sources seem unwilling to risk their reputation by supporting CF/LENR. We are not part of some sinister cabal, or paid for by some Illuminati style group of oil and coal barons, many of us would like to see an article more representative of the state of research in a field that has been ongoing for the last two decades. Until reliable secondary sources begin to change their tune however, our hands are tied. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC) The Navy work is peer reviewed and published, so why aren't the links to the work here anymore? Navy, 2 different labs, are incredibly reputable secondary sources. Do we agree on that? Navy at China Lake Miles verifying Pons and Fleischmann using the same lab setup and I posted the video of Melvin Miles crediting Pons and Fleischmann for that work, and the NASA document crediting Pons and Fleischmann for LENR, one of the many names for what was originally called cold fusion. NASA is also a highly respected work that de facto verifies cold fusion. And it's clear why they haven't credited P&F or used the term cold fusion. The false very nasty stigma that was stuck on cold fusion and it's researchers, makes for none of the work appearing in the Journal Nature, or Scientific American, new scientists are warned away from cold fusion related work like it's a bowl of poison. Government labs are hungry for better cheaper energy sources, but if Wikipedia isn't going to see the clear line of attribution between P&F-Navy-NASA,, well it's completely illogical, as is their failure to understand that if you deuterate metal, give it initiation energy, and it goes nuclear, then you are standing on Pons and Fleischmann's shoulders. So no new peer reviewers step forward, as you know. NASA's works are both secondary and tertiary sources confirming and expanding on P&F's "cold fusion", so was Navy SPAWAR and NRL/Miles. Taken together they've done hundreds of experimental runs on "cold fusion". Wiki editors any work that anyone does anywhere that involves putting a little energy into deuterated metal and getting a nuclear effect is confirmation of Pons and Fleischmann and "cold fusion". The different methods of getting deuterium into the metal lattice is not as important as the fact that their claiming a nuclear reaction,, many exclamation points. Same for the type of energy used for initiation, any number of energy types will start the reaction. It's the same beast, it's what the press called "cold fusion" in 1989, it is clear from the NASA document I posted that says NASA credits P&F, not good enough. So basically editors are telling me that I have to have more peer review of the peer reviewers and peer review of the peer reviewed published work confirming work by Navy and NASA, even though the objections I'm seeing here are consistently ignoring the links I've posted here. NASA has just released 2 history making studies and a 120 page international patent application,,,,,which are in fact confirmations of cold fusion and are in reality tertiary confirmation. Look at the train of recognition, its documented. Allow the Navy and NASA links, and just dump in a bunch of doubt and ruinous remarks and caution people that it's all wrong, The Navy's 20 some published peer reviewed papers over 20 some years verifying Pons and Fleischmann are all wrong, that Melvin Miles is wrong, SPAWAR's secondary confirmation and attribution to P&F are wrong, that you can't believe a NASA document giving credit to Pons and Fleischmann for LENR, and deny that NASA's work is the tertiary source that you won't recognize because they changed the method of putting deuterium in the metal lattice, and change which kind of energy they used to initiate the nuclear reactions. Add the links and then caution people that all of that work by highly reputable government and military labs is just all highly speculative and false. You could site it as government waste fraud and abuse. But it does deserve to be seen because I've met your objections. Consider the Navy and NASA works as secondary and tertiary confirming sources, to the tune of working their behinds off since 1989 and performing hundreds of verifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiclies (talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Organiclies (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC) You haven't convinced a single person, and you are starting to repeat yourself. Please read WP:STICK and WP:1AM and follow the advice you find there. --18:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Organiclies I repeat, please sign your posts using ~~~~ at the end. Also, you have not provided any links to the NAVY research, (that I can see anyway), if you have links to peer reviewed work by the Navy I'd be happy to have a look at them for you, as it is, there is nothing I can do without links as I am unfamiliar with the research. Looking at the NASA sources linked above in more detail, they don't look too promising for inclusion: There is a note saying: This document reports preliminary findings intended to solicit comments and ideas from the technical community And another saying: Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identification only. Their usage does not constitute an offi cial endorsement, either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The first note indicates that these findings are not any kind of final findings, but most importantly, the second note functionally removes the 'NASA stamp of approval', meaning that we can't automatically use it as a reliable source (unless we were citing it directly based on the reputation of the authors). It does say: Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by a technical expert., so at least it has been reviewed at some level, but this is not explicitly stated to be independent peer review, which is a problem that will complicate the usage of these sources. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Insertcleverphrasehere , I'll read the links you provided. Here is a preliminary link to a page at Researchgate lising some Navy papers, 21 papers at the time.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242327687_SPAWAR_Systems_Center-Pacific_PdD_CoDeposition_Research_Overview_of_Refereed_LENR_Publications. Will hunt down papers by Melvin Miles. Organiclies (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Insertcleverphraseshere , NASA understandably wants to be cautious, and disclaimed away their part , ironic since it's their work, and since they are paying their theoretical guy a lot of money and granted him exclusive contract. But yes, "cold fusion" has a bad rap and when the public first heard of it, NASA critics started barking. NASA's budget lives or dies with public opinion. I expect the call for technical comment will bring peer review, but it's seems to have been a long running experiment,, so peer review will take a good while and not everywhere has a LINAC in their lab. The call for technical comments is a good way to get peer review however. Organiclies (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Insertcleverphraseshere : I've started posting links Organiclies (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Three Navy researchers and Forsley from JWK international, citing Pons and Fleischmann on line 1 of the abstract, and detecting high energy neutrons in PdD system https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00114-008-0449-x Organiclies (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC) http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol8.pdf Naval Labs Melvin Miles publishes mistakes made by MIT and CalTech when they tried to duplicate Pons and Fleischman's "cold fusion". Organiclies (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC) http://research.missouri.edu/vcr_seminar/U%20of%20Mo/spawar.pp Powerpoint by Navy Scietists et al description of 20 year history of LENR , aka cold fusion. From U of Missouri _____ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00114-007-0221-7 Navy SPAWAR credit P&F, energentic particles Abstract Almost two decades ago, Fleischmann and Pons reported excess enthalpy generation in the negatively polarized Pd/D-D2O system, which they attributed to nuclear reactions. In the months and years that followed, other manifestations of nuclear activities in this system were observed, viz. tritium and helium production and transmutation of elements. In this report, we present additional evidence, namely, the emission of highly energetic charged particles emitted from the Pd/D electrode when this system is placed in either an external electrostatic or magnetostatic field. The density of tracks registered by a CR-39 detector was found to be of a magnitude that provides undisputable evidence of their nuclear origin. The experiments were reproducible. A model based upon electron capture is proposed to explain the reaction products observed in the Pd/D-D2O system. ____ https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-european-physical-journal-applied-physics/article/use-of-cr-39-in-pdd-co-deposition-experiments/962F25029909ADC4CDD888EFF770CAF6 Verificaiton Pd/D tracks observed in CR-39 nuclear track detectors are of nuclear origin. _____ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0375960195009159 "Evidence of X-rays in cathodic polarization of the PdD system(s) is presented" "evidence for tritium production" _____ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040603103004015 Abstract Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrode, prepared by the co-deposition technique, serving as a cathode in the Dewar-type electrochemical cell/calorimeter is examined. It is shown that: (i) excess enthalpy is generated during and after the completion of the co-deposition process; (ii) rates of excess enthalpy generation are somewhat higher than when Pd wires or other forms of Pd electrodes are used; (iii) positive feedback and heat-after-death effects were observed; and (iv) rates of excess power generation were found to increase with an increase in both cell current and cell temperature, the latter being higher. _______ Organiclies (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossthermaland.pdf Volume 1 by U.S. Navy SPAWAR researchers , written at the tenth year of their research on cold fusion Volume 2 was written by Dr. Fleischmann and it was a guide to achieving accurate calorimetry with his cell. Most phsicists didn't know how to properly do calorimetry in an irreversible actively energy producing cell. Volume two was introduced by Dr. Pam Mosier-Boss of the Navy SPAWAR effort, Ill link to if it's good to have here. Organiclies (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC) _______ _________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiclies (talk • contribs) 14:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Do you think the donald will allow the world to benefit from the free energy we will be getting then? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 15:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Unpredictable how he will look at it, but the DOD/Navy/NASA/DTRA, all military recognize that the rest of the world is working on it and it's better to have it first than last. For example aircraft payload could increase by 30-40%, due to not having to carry around the extra framing, fuel tanks, and fuel, for the flight. No fuel convoys to get ambushed on the roads, etc. It's limitless , the first working reactor will change everything. Once they have theory, they can engineer, and these 2 papers seem to have planned the reactants, for specific outcomes. Government has had the Navy's continuous work on this for 25 years and failed to fund it except for some money under Obama, and very fortunately the funding and work that Navy SPAWAR provided for 20 years or so. Organiclies (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC) I was thinking more along the lines of ending poverty, healing the sick, no need for war, life of leisure, caviar etc. The Armed forces would become redundant though, so perhaps the Navy scientists would have to find something else to do? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC) -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Well,, if there's something humans haven't fought over, I can't think of what it is. Trade wars, spice wars, wars over land, tillable land, water, and the ever popular,, whose the boss, and religion when used for power politics and greed. Humans don't have a good history of being rational. Maybe AI running master running on Quantums will control all with worn implants keeping us in line, but then there's the population problem, Quantums would have to get pretty personal to fix that. Organiclies (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC) There were two attempts at JPL to replicate one of the reports linked above. The second attempt results: "As before, we find no evidence of activation." "Our null result raises doubts about the claim of nuclear activation by x-rays reported in [NASA/TM-2015-218491]. [5] Neither paper has anything to do with the subject of this article, but at least one of them failed replication. --mikeu talk 20:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Mikeu It is related as it's energizing deuterated material to attempt to start nuclear activity. It's an attempt to progress from the original work of P&F and lots of 100's of works that followed. From NASA paper,, """ Portions of SL10A, SL16, and SL17A samples were also scanned using a beta scintillator and found to have beta activity in the tritium energy band, continuing without noticeable decay for over 12 months. Beta scintillation investigation of as-received materials (before x-ray exposure) showed no beta activity in the tritium energy band, indicating the beta emitters were not in the starting materials.""". And, the HPE and Ti controls showed no alpha or beta activity. So,,JPL's Radon theory doesn't hold against the NASA controls. Also the NASA re-exposures seem to rule this out. JPL state that the control undeuterated polyethylene was more prone to static charge, yet HPEcontrols in the NASA work were not emitting, not the HPE and not the Ti, so the x ray exposed controls would have been emitting too,if there were Radon decay products sticking to the samples? Radon contamination theory. Who knows? JPL might have gotten the second (and inappropriate)batch of "fuel" that the NASA paper mentions. Contracting with JPL was then, part of the plan. Expecting then, that NASA has also arranged for someone to replicate the photon(gamma) activation paper soon. Organiclies (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Organiclies (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Organiclies (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Navy patent on "cold fusion, lenr, lanr, etc" for the remediation of nuclear waste: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/8419919 Organiclies (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Final Navy SPAWAR D.T.R.A. (Defense Threat Reduction Agency) report withheld by DOD for years, 2016 Boss and Forsley worked 4 years to get it released: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf Organiclies (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Guy Macon : Navy said it's absolutely a nuclear reaction and they determined that using several very widely accepted tools::: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf 71.66.237.229 (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Not the Navy. The DTRA LENR Report That Isn’t a DTRA Report. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Guy Macon : Except it was the Navy, you have to actually read the article you posted. The author of the story you linked to authenticated via govt. information source that it was government work carried out by government scientists. Your article also says the problem with the very large and definitive paper, is that Pam Mosier-Boss put here own copy of the cover page on the study, which apparently passed muster with government technology security censors, who withheld the report for 4 years. Organiclies (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Eggishorn and jps Good development by Eggishorn! jps , I'd like to say that nearly 30 years of work by multiple DOD and NASA labs is not the same nor in any way similar to tenured university work, which, by the way, has produced discoveries of worth. The last link I posted which is to the final DTRA report, gives extensive references to the scientists involved in the work by Navy and others. The author(s) mention its possibly the most exhaustive work ever done. The work was moved to other government labs more equipped to do research with nuclear reactions, especially when they produce neutrons. The previous sentence is almost a quote from a Navy official. I could find the exact quote if it's helpful. NASA also started their research right after Pons and Fleischmann announced in 1989. Organiclies (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC) 71.66.237.229 (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Mikeu The JPL independent study didn't address the fact that the NASA Glenn controls did not emit alpha or beta, JPL's first effort shouldn't have even started as their X-Ray tube had no narrow focus and it had less intensity, and they altered the stainless steel sample cap thickness and on and on.. a sloppy attempt to pretend to duplicate. In attempt #2 , JPL suggests that NASA's positive particle readings were caused by Radon daughters adhering to the DPE by static charge, so JPL blasted their samples with an ion gun to eliminate the static charge,, oh dear. Do you think that could change the conditions of an experiment where charge might be beneficial, LOL how about any gas loading? Again, if Glenn's positive particle detections were from Radon, then why didn't the Glenn control DPE smaples (deuterated polyethylene) also show particle emissions!?. They didn't. Interesting that you don't want scientific research posted without peer review because it's branded pseudoscience. Think the Navy spends 27 years of research on nothing, then relocates the work to another government lab because of dangerous neutron generation, per Frank Gordon. JPL changed the experiment in several ways, it doesn't even seem like a sincere effort to replicate. JPL destroyed the fuel. Organiclies (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC) The comment in the section below, which I'm apparently barred from posting to: Any doubts about the Navy SPAWAR's success can be judged from this paper, a report on their efforts through 2012:::: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf Organiclies (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Here is a 1 hour and 3 minute video by U.S. Navy SPAWAR researchers claiming "very high repeatability" in starting the reaction, the detection of neutrons, and the transmutation of the Palladium into other elemental metals. All of which is only possible with a nuclear reaction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2LV8rM7vn0 Organiclies (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Nuclear tunneling

The rational for Muon induced fusion of Deuterium is that the negatively charged Muon replaces one of a Deuterium molecules electrons, and the Muon being hundred times heavier than an electron, results in a molecule where the nucei are so close together that there is a finite possibility of nucleus-nucleus interaction ("tunneling"). The rational for Pons' reaction was that Hydrogen ions (naked protons)are intersticial to the Host (Palladium, Nickel, et al) and within the Hosts metallic orbitals, hence can approach closely. Apparently not close enough. Maybe metallic Deuterium?

Shjacks45 (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Per wp:TPG, please provide reliable sources and suggest an edit. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

P&F expressed regret at calling it fusion, but NASA, Navy, and many other researchers claim there are both fission and fusion reactions present. What P&F were right about, was that the reaction was nuclear, because it produced very much more energy than is possible from any chemical reaction. Yes, perhaps metallic Deuterium and/or Hydrogen. Organiclies (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

LeadSongDog Shjacks45 Who is supposed to do the edit you request? Organiclies (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Shjacks45 seems to be discussing CF, not an edit to the article. The purpose of WP talkpages, per wp:TPG, is discussing edits, not other things. Particularly for controversial topics it is necessary to maintain a clear focus on this distinction. It doesn't much matter who makes the edit if there is consensus for it, but without sufficient wp:RS that consensus is very unlikely to develop.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

But from my edits, in the green band (hidden) which obscures the posts, I clearly point to numerous U.S. Navy SPAWAR published studies which show there is nuclear activity. Surely the Navy satisfies the reliable published source requirements. Then there's he DTRA report published by Pam Mosier-Boss et al. Surely these are relible sources , the U.S. Navy after all. organiclies Organiclies (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason those edits were hidden is because they had zero chance of leading to any productive effect on the article. The sources you presented were rejected as unrelated to the topic, unreliable, or fringe, and the suggested changes you made were likewise rejected. The majority of your comments were a discussion of your personal views of the subject. If you want to discuss your thoughts on the topic of cold fusion, this isn't the place for that. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Your criticism of my posts fails completely to those who read the information linked to in my posts. I'll take note that Wiki editors refuse to believe 25 years of research by the U.S. Navy SPAWAR labs and a report released by the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency. organiclies 71.66.237.229 (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I read your enough of your posts, and the research papers they linked to. I am not interested in reading any more walls of text arguing the same thing over and over again. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Very well, so we can agree that Wikipedia doesn't believe 27 years of cold fusion science put forth by U.S. Navy Researchers, NASA researchers, 100 University researchers, at least, the U.S. DTRA, etc. The research has verified the existence of nuclear effects in these experiments, yet on the main page you call LENR a "Very well, so we can agree that Wikipedia doesn't believe 27 years of cold fusion science put forth by U.S. Navy Researchers, NASA researchers, 100 University researchers, at least, the U.S. DTRA, etc. The research has verified the existence of nuclear effects in these experiments, yet on the main page you call LENR "a hypothesized type of nuclear reaction". Wikipedia's editors appear unable or unwilling to allow any summary of the edits to show a positive impression of the research, instead continuously bashing the science, and this behavior has gone on for years. Despite the patents, despite the Navy now licensing the technology. Will Wikipedia still bash the science when LENR/Cold Fusion is providing the electricity for it's heat, servers, and lights, and buy a coal fired power plant? organiclies 71.66.237.229 (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we can agree that Wikipedia does not believe the Truth about this topic, it being an encyclopedia and not caring about such things. I do suspect, however, that in the hypothetical scenario you describe reliable sources would come to exist, so you can rest assured that Wikipedia would change to reflect the mainstream consensus scientific opinion. --Noren (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Electron+proton capture?

Looks like finally some physics arrives in the community. This article is surprisingly reasonable. --mfb (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Isn't Quantum tunneling a theoretical mechanism for cold fusion?

I have read the article on The ultimate fate of the universe right here on Wikipedia and it says that Quantum tunneling will eventually lead to black holes in the far far future. Isn't quantum tunneling possible under low energy conditions. Doesn't that meet the definition of cold fusion? If it does wouldn't that mean Cold Fusion is not pseudo science but a naturally occurring phenomenon? Xanikk999 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry the article is in fact this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe#If_protons_decay_on_higher_order_nuclear_processes

The line says

"In 101500 years, cold fusion occurring via quantum tunnelling should make the light nuclei in ordinary matter fuse into iron-56 nuclei (see isotopes of iron). Fission and alpha particle emission should make heavy nuclei also decay to iron, leaving stellar-mass objects as cold spheres of iron, called iron stars." and then it says "Quantum tunnelling should also turn large objects into black holes. Depending on the assumptions made, the time this takes to happen can be calculated as from 101026 years to 101076 years. Quantum tunnelling may also make iron stars collapse into neutron stars in around 101076 years.[12]"

So therefore if this article is correct then Cold fusion is not pseudo science but an actual thing. I do not know physics very well I'm just quoting from another article so I can't really explain these quotes. Xanikk999 (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The section Future_of_an_expanding_universe#Matter_decays_into_iron states "10¹⁵⁰⁰ years from now" when the properties of the universe would be quite different than they are today. This extremely hypothetical prediction has little to do with an article about cold fusion mechanisms being observed today. Even if there were evidence of this occurring it would likely belong in a different article, much as Muon-catalyzed_fusion is covered separately. --mikeu ^talk 00:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

10^1500 can be written as a 1 followed by 1500 zeros. To the practical person, a process that takes 10^1500 years is the same as a process that doesn't happen. (I typed ^ for "to the power of".) Cardamon (talk) 08:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

See here: "For a deuterium molecule D2 in its ground state the penetration probability is still too low, namely, ∼10^(−82) [1] and the fusion rate is ∼10^(−62) s^(-1) [3]." Count Iblis (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

To put that into context: If we would replace all of Earth with deuterium at room temperature (10⁵¹ molecules) we would get on average one single fusion reaction every 10¹¹ seconds or 3000 years. --mfb (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning an existing concept and using it as a theoretical basis for speculation does not turn the speculation into a "real thing". It has to work too. It doesn't seem to. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Problematic reference

In the following reference:

<ref name="last_challenged">{{harvnb|Labinger|Weininger|2005|p=1919}} Fleischmann's paper was challenged in {{cite journal |ref=harv |last=Morrison |first=R.O. Douglas |title=Comments on claims of excess enthalpy by Fleischmann and Pons using simple cells made to boil |doi=10.1016/0375-9601(94)91133-9 |journal=Phys. Lett. A |volume=185 |issue=5–6 |date=28 February 1994 |pages=498–502 |bibcode=1994PhLA..185..498M |url=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170921233652/http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf |archivedate=21 September 2017 |citeseerx=10.1.1.380.7178 }}</ref>

Please replace http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf with https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0375960194911339 and remove the archive url.

The link to lenr-canr.org is deceptive, as what it presents is not the peer-reviewed challenge but an editorialised and apparently unpublished email "debate" between the authors and Fleischmann published on a cold-fusion apologist website with no obvious evidence of copyright release. 82.1.159.160 (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 19:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Change links please

The following sources have problematic links to lenr-canr, a cold fusion promotion website, which appears to have been a result of an error by a free online source bot:

* {{cite journal |ref=harv |mode=cs2 | doi=10.1007/s00114-009-0644-4 | last=Hagelstein | first=Peter L. | title=Constraints on energetic particles in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment | year=2010 | journal=Naturwissenschaften | volume=97 | issue=4 | pages=345–52 | pmid=20143040 | bibcode = 2010NW.....97..345H | hdl=1721.1/71631| url=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinconstraint.pdf}}

The article is in Naturwissenschaften, a copyright journal published by Springer-Verlag and was made freely available by MIT. The correct URL would be https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/71631.

* {{cite journal |ref=harv |mode=cs2 | last=Kitamura | first=Akita | last2=Nohmi | first2=Takayoshi | last3=Sasaki | first3=Yu | last4=Taniike | first4=Akira | last5=Takahashi | first5=Akito | last6=Seto | first6=Reiko | last7=Fujita | first7=Yushi | title=Anomalous Effects in Charging of Pd Powders with High Density Hydrogen Isotopes | journal=Physics Letters A | volume=373 | issue=35 | pages=3109–3112 | year=2009 | doi=10.1016/j.physleta.2009.06.061 | bibcode = 2009PhLA..373.3109K | url=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KitamuraAanomalouse.pdf|citeseerx=10.1.1.380.6124 }}

This article is copyright (Physics Letters A, published by Elsevier). There is no evidence of copyright release. There is a full text online copy at the authors' own institutional site which should be used instead: http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/repository/90001369.pdf.

* {{cite journal |ref=harv |mode=cs2 | last=Scaramuzzi | first=F. | title=Ten years of cold fusion: an eye-witness account | periodical=[[Accountability in Research]] | year=2000 | issue=1&2 | volume=8 | page=77 | issn=0898-9621 | oclc=17959730 | doi=10.1080/08989620008573967 | url=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Scaramuzzitenyearsof.pdf | accessdate=20 January 2016 |citeseerx=10.1.1.380.8109 }}

This article is in Accountability in Research, copyright is held by Taylor & Francis. There is a claim of permission but without evidence of release specifically to the site (T&F do not typically do this other than to authors themselves). This should be left with the DOI as there is past evidence of copyright violation at the lenr-canr site.

* {{cite journal |ref=harv |mode=cs2 | last=Szpak | first=Stanislaw | last2=Mosier-Boss | first2=Pamela A. | last3=Miles | first3=Melvin H. | last4=Fleischmann | first4=Martin | title=Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition | journal=Thermochimica Acta | volume=410 |issue=1–2 | page=101 | year=2004 | doi=10.1016/S0040-6031(03)00401-5 | url=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMthermalbeh.pdf|citeseerx=10.1.1.380.2400 }}

This link is deceptive, the pdf claims to be a conference paper from the ninth international conference on cold fusion but is actually published in Thermochimica Acta, an Elsevier publication. Elsevier are notoriously reluctant to cede copyright. ResearchGate allows a request for the full text to the authors but not a full text link, so that also indicates this is not a paper that is legitimately available free online.

* [http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/386-IEEE-brief-DeChiaro-9-2015-pdf/ Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) Phenomena and Potential Applications]: [[Naval Surface Warfare Center]] report NSWCDD-PN-15-0040 by Louis F. DeChiaro, PhD, 23 September 2015

This link is broken. It's not used as a source, and it's in a forum, it should be removed. I cannot verify that it is as represented - and even if it was it would be a primary source potentially conflicting with mainstream interpretations so would be a red flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.159.160 (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Forked page?

The entire "Fleischmann–Pons experiment" section on this page seems to be replicated in Fleischmann–Pons experiment. There are various tweaks and differences, but essentially they're the same couple of thousand words.

Looking at the history, it seems there was an attempt at a split in December 2015 which never really went anywhere, and I'm wondering if the new page created as a result was just forgotten about at the time.

Should it just be redirected back here? Edits to the new page since the split seem fairly minimal, save for a new section at the end that briefly praises one of the recent theories, and very little directly links to it. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and redirected this back to Cold fusion#History. There don't seem to be any substantive changes needing merged in. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Large investments in the Industrial Heat corporation

Several media reports describe substantial investments by prominent people in a company called Industrial Heat. See: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/brad-pitt-and-laurene-powell-jobs-are-reportedly-invested-in-a-mysterious-cold-fusion-energy-company.html (and many others). Industrial Heat is reportedly working on cold fusion technologies. Would it be helpful to add a section to the main article on "commercial interest" or even "commercial frauds" related to cold fusion? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Who, the guys that licensed the Energy Catalyzer and spent years trying to reproduce Rossi's "results" before going to court? I'd be embarrassed too, if I had to admit sinking $10M into that custom-built water heater. They might even be tempted to divert their investors' attention from the facts. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

New Paper in Physical Review C

https://journals.aps.org/prc/accepted/ff073P1eKf41950715597a86203c464d727b8de5b — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 17:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Though I don't have access to the full paper, this appears to be off-topic for this page as the environment wasn't cold - from the abstract, "...in which a small fraction of the fuel nuclei is heated by energetic photoneutrons...between hot fuel and lattice nuclei ... provide the most effective heating of fuel ions to initiate nuclear fusion reactions..." --Noren (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Noren, Yeah, I saw that too, but also don't have access. It also mentions electron screening, tunnelling of the coulomb barrier and "high-density hydrogen isotope (fuel) nuclei embedded in metal lattices". All of those things are mainstays of CF. I guess I thought it was worth bringing over and mentioning, since it may be related. I guess we need someone with access to the PDF. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of data?

The "requirements" include D2O and LiOD hence seems to be a Lithium Deuterium reaction. Some of US (tested) thermonuclear weapons Lithium in place of Tritium; Li7 + energy > He4 + T then T + D > He4 + neutron OR Li6 + D > 2 He4 hence no Tritium or He3 produced? 'Distance between Deuterium atoms in interstitial sites in metal chrystal' except if saturated and >1 Deuterium nucleus per interstitial site. What is the closest approach of deuterium nuclei within the metallic orbitals? Under pressure, Palladium itself degrades if H > 1.7 and erodes to PdH2 (not issue with 5% Silver alloy). Electroplating literature is rife with studies of Hydrogen embrittlement (Hydrogen in metal lattice) and the alkaline LiOH of the reaction (pH ~12) promotes alkali metal cations, Li, entering metal also. At high current and low H+ (D+) concentration there would be Lithium in the Electrode. Shjacks45 (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

This isn't the place to suggest new hypotheses about Cold Fusion- this page is intended to discuss changes to the encyclopedia article. Inclusion into the encyclopedia article would require publication in some sort of reliable source. I'm not making any judgments about how plausible your hypotheses are when I say that they're off-topic for this page. If and when these ideas appear in scientific literature in a notable way then they could be discussed here and added to the article. --Noren (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

boron-hydrogen fusion

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/pioneering-technology-promises-unlimited-clean-and-safe-energy should apparently be added to this article.

And why doesn't this article even mention boron or even have a link to aneutronic fusion, and why doesn't that article even mention LENR? --Espoo (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Espoo, maybe because LENR is a marketing term used by cold fusionists looking to avoid the ridicule they have historically attracted for engaging in pathological science? Guy (help!) 18:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Report of the explosion, again

This paragraph was removed some time in the past:

Pons and Fleishmann also reported in their 1989 Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry publication that "We have to report here that under the conditions of the last experiment even using D2O alone, a substantial portion of the cathode fused (melting point 1554 °C) part of it vapourised and the cell and contents and a part of the fume cupboard housing the experiment were destroyed."

The explosion, if it did happen, may have been just a sudden release of H2 from the palladium and its ignition by catalytic action of the metal. The H2 flame would have been hot enough to melt the cathode, and H2 in the air could easily explain the explosion. At least two other explosions of this nature were reported by researchers who tried to reproduce their experiment.
While there is no corroborating evidence that the explosion reported by F&P actually happened, this report, widely circulated at the time, played an important role in fortering interest of the public and of other scientists. And, if true, it would help explain why F&P felt so confident that they had indeed achieved nuclear fusion. Thus this incident (actual or alleged) should be mentioned in the article,
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Jorge Stolfi, I think it is true - my best friend was working in Fleischman's lab at the time and noted that the apparatus ejected the "thermonuclear shield" (a china pudding basin upended over the thing to catch splashes) with some force. But I don't think it was *that* big a deal. A good pub story, not much more. Guy (help!) 21:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Well, I followed the cold fusion saga on Usenet's comp.sci.physics for a couple of years, and remember that explosion being often cited as "evidence" by the believers. Since P&F themselves reported it in a refereed journal, I would think that it qualifies as sourced, notable, and relevant to understand the sociology/psychology of the CF phenomenon. Needless to say, the non-believers' explanation should be mentioned too. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: PS. The incident described by your friend does not seem to be the same as the one described by P&F. I don't know if it says so in the journal article, but I recall claims by P or F that the explosion even left a dent on the concrete countertop. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the standard (anti-CF) story is a D₂+O₂ explosion. There's a Nathan Lewis quote with a bit more detail here:

Physicists asked Dr. Lewis if he could account for the burst of heat that Dr. Pons reported as having destroyed one of the Utah cells.

"My understanding," Dr. Lewis said, "is that Pons's son was there at the time, not Pons himself. I understand that someone turned the current off for a while. When that happens hydrogen naturally bubbles out of the palladium cathode, and creates a hazard of fire or explosion. It is a simple chemical reaction that has nothing to do with fusion."

I went slightly more into depth if you search for the heading "What about melting and explosions?" at my blog post here. --Steve (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Sbyrnes321, by "anti-CF" you mean science. Science tries to explain what actually happens. Cold fusionists try to explain why it's cold fusion. There's a difference. Guy (help!) 08:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

NASA Lattice Confinement Fusion.

It's not hot fusion, it's not Muon catalysed fusion, it most closely resembles cold fusion.

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)

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)

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)

Fleischmann–Pons experiment

"Pons and Fleischmann never retracted their claims, but moved their research program to France after the controversy erupted. "

moved from where to France?

The University of Utah, which as the article mentions had pressured them to publish as soon as possible prior to the controversy. See also the first sentence [6].--Noren (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent updates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would anyone care to write about the recent ARPA-E announcement for up to $10M "... to establish clear practices to determine whether low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) could be the basis for a potentially transformative carbon-free energy source." (DE-FOA-0002784 and 2785: Exploratory Topics SBIR/STTR) https://arpa-e.energy.gov/news-and-media/press-releases/us-department-energy-announces-10-million-study-low-energy-nuclear

Based on claims of transmutation and new processes for it (via LENR) much more money could be devoted to this application. Up to an additional funding of $50M has been set aside for "... Converting UNF Radioisotopes into Energy (CURIE) ...to enable commercially viable reprocessing of used nuclear fuel (UNF) ..." (DE-FOA-0002691and DE-FOA-0002692).

https://arpa-e-foa.energy.gov/Default.aspx#FoaId1adbff8d-435f-4644-a570-282d3e67116c .... Aqm2241 (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I would gladly do it, except I don't want to get involved with a battle with the guerilla skeptics. However, I am planning to report a particular individual for disruptive editing when I have the time to do that! --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I was hoping that one of the skeptics would try to address it. I don't think that they can block its insertion, so it would be interesting to see how they can introduce it and try to reverse its impact. .... Aqm2241 (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Aqm2241 The real question is if anyone ELSE has written about it. This source is a primary source and press release, and utterly unsuitable for inclusion in this article. We need reliable, independent third party sources. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 09:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Tangent on sourcing in general
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Research on cold fusion has to be done by press release. It's a tradition, or an old charter, or something. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC) The work of the sceptics on wikipedia is done by reflex action, combined with closing the eyes. It's a tradition, or an old charter, or something. People who have their eyes open and their mind switched on, on the other hand, will go to the press release and see at the bottom 'click for more information', which takes you to the official page (not a press release), giving more details plus an application form. We can't expect the sceptics to do that of course, as it might destroy their case. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Yawn. The point was that cold fusers tend to shout a lot in public about stuff that later turns out to be wrong or overblown. See science by press release. For Wikipedia, it is not interesting to check a primary source when there are no secondary sources that would allow us to mention it. Also, it is not to everybody's taste to dig into every dunghill in the hope to find a diamond. Can we stop this? The source is insufficient according to WP:RS, case closed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Another instructive instance of sceptics working away hard at their business! If the rules say an official announcement by a US govt. source is not a good source, then there's something seriously wrong with the rules. It is a plain fact that the DoE is funding investigations into LENR, and an encyclopedia is supposed to be a source of facts. Or am I wrong to state that? --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Yes, you're wrong. The encyclopedia is based more on settled knowledge than undigested fact(oid)s. Bon courage (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC) If the rules say an official announcement by a US govt. source is not a good source, then there's something seriously wrong with the rules If someone had said that before a horror clown became president in 2016, a lengthy explanation of why the rules are fine in that regard would have had to follow. Now, it should be clear to everybody that being part of the US government and being a reliable source are completely unrelated. If you want to change the rules, Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources is thataway. This page is for improving the article. I am hatting this tangent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

To quote from WP on primary sources: "Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." There's a real shortage of common sense in the way the rule is being used in the above. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

My common sense tells me that we won't know if this will have any sort of impact on the world at large if we don't see sources like newspapers and the like picking up on it. We can afford to wait for that to happen, there are no deadlines here. MrOllie (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

In view of your comment I've removed that edit. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

please Google DE-FOA-0002785 or DE-FOA-0002784 for public coverage of the FOA. .... Aqm2241 (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Well done! So there is a secondary source. Is 'or here' happy now that his objection has been dealt with? Can https://www.instrumentl.com/grants/funding-opportunity-announcement-de-foa-0002784-exploratory-topics be given as a reference, or is there some other problem? --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Indiscriminate content scrapers are not secondary sources. MrOllie (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Ollie, your POV is showing.

Georgia Tech chose to communicate the announcements by combining information from two FOAs and adding comments.

13. ARPA-E Exploratory Topics - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

Deadline for Questions: 11/4/2022, 5 PM ET

Full Application Due: 11/15/2022, 9:30 AM ET

Approximately $10 million is to be shared between two FOAs, DE-FOA-0002784 and DE-FOA-0002785. DE-FOA-0002785 is intended for SBIR and STTR eligible applicants. This announcement is purposely broad in scope, and will encourage the submission of the most innovative and unconventional ideas in energy technology. The objective of this solicitation is to support high-risk R&D leading to the development of potentially disruptive new technologies across the full spectrum of energy applications. Topics under this FOA will explore new areas of technology development that, if successful, could establish new program areas for ARPA-E, or complement the current portfolio of ARPA-E programs. The topic under consideration for these two FOA’s is low energy nuclear reactions. Aqm2241 (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

They repost everything - hence, indiscriminate. We do not need a reposting service, we need a proper news outlet with an editorial staff. (Also not the new energy times). Wake me up when a newspaper writes about it. MrOllie (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

A grant announcement doesn't mean anything to the development of LENR, why would it fit into this article? We don't even know who would be doing the research, much less what the outcome would be. If it were covered widely in third-party sources then we might cover it here as a 'future research' angle, but as it is we don't even know if this grant will get picked up. This isn't news, it's just hopeful and wishful thinking. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 22:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Cleverphrase: I suspect that most readers would recognize that ARPA is putting money where they have done some study. The FOA states:

"The objective of this solicitation is to support high-risk R&D leading to the development of potentially disruptive new technologies across the full spectrum of energy applications."

ARPA is "putting our money where their mouth is" rather than, like some people who are "putting their mouth where some money is." Aqm2241 (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

All that is beside the point. You may be convinced that there must be something there by the fact that someone decided to spend money on that hypothetical something. But the real question is: is this good enough for mentioning in the article? Is it encyclopedic? Are there secondary sources that talk about it? If the answer is no, we cannot add it. Wikipedia is tertiary literature. We cannot just skip step two of the sequence "something happens - WP:RS talk about it - Wikipedia talks about it". Why don't you just wait until step two? Why is that so difficult to understand? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Answers: (i) it is good enough (ii) it is encyclopedic (iii) there are secondary sources (iv) why not do it now? The sooner the better! --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Brian Josephson (i) it's not (at least not for this article) (ii) there is not data to report on, this is just news about possible future research, that's not the purpose of an encyclopaedia (iii) not really, all we have are some press releases and a primary source (iv) Please see WP:DEADLINE. I do understand where you are coming from, but as a user who showed up here 10 years ago, crusaded for LENR, got topic banned from cold fusion, then moved on to the rest of Wikipedia and actually learned what it is about, ran new page patrol for a few years, and watched all the other things that people really care about and want to have on Wikipedia... that's just not what Wikipedia is for. We aren't here to right great wrongs, nor are we a place to spread the news about something that isn't being talked about elsewhere. Generally the news on something needs to be pretty widespread before it gets included here. If and when the (mainstream) scientific community pulls its head out of its arse and realises that there is something strange going on with LENR (the reputation trap turns around), then we can change the tune of this article, until then, we wait. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 10:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's a a quote that's pretty relevant here: "'Nobody should trust Wikipedia,' its co-founder warns: Larry Sanger says site has been taken over by left-wing 'volunteers' who write off sources that don't fit their agenda as fake news". Sanger may not have been referring to this kind of subject but the general picture in contexts such as these is the same. Please do not try and 'fix' this page so that people cannot see this comment. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You're quoting the Daily Mail and Larry Sanger?!? Case closed. We do not indulge the crank-o-sphere. If there any decent sources, bring them; but until then we're done here. I suggest closing. Bon courage (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Sanger also thinks Qanon is right, is an anti-vaxxer, and thinks that the Jan 6 riot was a false flag operation by Antifa. Hitching your rhetorical wagon to his is not a great idea. - MrOllie (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

And he says that fascism is "left-wing", which probably means his position is farther right than Mussolini.

Of course, none of all this is relevant to the article. Can we stop this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure! I have more important things to do than deal with the clear bias in this article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation methodology

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I happened to look at this article today and noticed that it uses a mixture of footnoted citations and inline citations in a style similar to parenthetical referencing. I note also, relying on this, that parenthetical referencing is deprecated in Wikipedia. Unless there is objection here, I will probably edit this article to convert instances of those inline references to shortened footnotes. If you have objections to this or thoughts about it, please comment here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 Not done -- I was in the middle of other things when I left the earlier comment and, on a second look today, I didn't see anything I thought needed changing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename page as LENR?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think ColdFusion is now outdated and low energy nuclear reactions is preferred Lawrence18uk (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

1. People invent thing that does not work, give it name.
2. Thing becomes known by that name. People know thing does not work.
3. People who believe in thing use new name for thing to avoid association with name that stands for something that does not work.
4. Thing still does not work.

We should use the common name, not the camouflage name. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Not quite correct. It does work, but only under difficult to establish conditions. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

And ghosts do exist, but every time a skeptic looks for them, they make sure not to show themselves. jps (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hahaha! --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1992 NYTimes about cold fusion in Japan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Perhaps a bit of perspective on what sort of coverage would merit inclusion in this article would be helpful. In 1992, Japan began a focused $20 million(in 1992 dollars) program that, crucially, was covered by the New York Times. Given this coverage by a major mainstream press outlet, it has enough weight that it is included as a single sentence in the body of the article. If this new request for proposals becomes a program with similar coverage in mainstream press I would support a similar amount of coverage in the article. Without such press coverage or similar secondary sourcing, it doesn't merit similar inclusion. --Noren (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

References

I see editor Ixocatus has been busy closing discussions again. I wonder what right he has to do this all by himself? What's the official situation there?

Anyway, when I have time I will be giving my views regarding Wickedpedia on my own talk page. Brian Josephson (talk) Brian Josephson (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)13:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Noren: See section Later research. Pollack already mentioned. Ixocactus (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Essay by Huw Price

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Science philosopher Huw Price has an interesting essay in Aeon magazine on the politics and sociology of cold fusion, in which he claims research is hindered by a reputation trap that can also have negative results in other fields: "People outside the trap won't go near it, for fear of falling in.... People inside the trap are already regarded as disreputable, an attitude that trumps any efforts that they might make to argue their way out, by reason and evidence." His views may be an important perspective worth including, to contextualize and clarify broader issues (please read the whole article, I'm not necessarily advocating the particular quote be included). See additional journalistic context on Price's view and the state of cold fusion studies by science writer Clive Cookson. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

That's the old excuse pseudoscientists always used: "we do not have any evidence because scientists will not look for it to avoid damaging their reputations". Not very relevant here becuase it is universally applicable wherever there is no evidence for something. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you think Huw Price is a pseudoscientist, or otherwise unqualified to comment on this topic? --Animalparty! (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a paraphrase of David Goodstein, who we already cover in the article. See the quote referring to a 'pariah field'. There's no need to rehash this concept every time someone new repeats it.--Noren (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Not a scientist and unqualified. Philosophers of science ususally don't have meaningful contributions to specific scientific questions because their technical understanding is too shallow - they literally can't look beyond who has what position, into the actual reasoning that goes into it, because it is all gibberish to them. Instead, they look for reasons they can understand, i.e. sociological ones. Many of them can't even name any properties of science that would distinguish it from bullshit, or even care about the difference. Price seems to be one of those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Credible justification for this, please! Anyway, I'll put the question to him and see what he comes up with. But let's have your credible justification first. And while we're about it, what are your own qualifications? Brian Josephson (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at https://uberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Huw-Price-Times-Arrow1997.pdf, and see if you still want to claim that Price doesn't understand physics. Brian Josephson (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not claiming that Price doesn't understand physics, I am saying that he has no formal qualification. But that is not relevant for my reasoning, it was just a response to a question luring me onto a tangent. His essay appeared in Aeon (magazine), which is not an RS for scientific questions. If he had anything interesting to say, one could overlook that in a pinch. But, as I said, it's just the usual I-am-being-suppressed cliché and not worth including. Otherwise, every article about something that does not work could quote people saying, esentially, "no wonder that we have not yet found out that it does work, because scientists avoid researching it!" --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Such a biased perspective! I warn people to take care regarding Wikipedia articles because of the way they get taken over by genuinely unqualified people (which Price is not). --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you can ask him whether he still is a Rossi fan seven years after penning the paen? How long till he admits he was wrong?

Reader: They split the bill.

jps (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I apologise for not understanding what I presume was intended to be a joke (re splitting the bill, that is). But, anyway, in response Price suggests you look at his updated article, entitled 'Risk and Scientific Reputation: Lessons from Cold Fusion', in a forthcoming book entitled Managing Extreme Technological Risk, ed. C. Rhodes. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

"About Rossi, I am happy to concede that he hasn’t made it to the finishing line, even at a modest 50% credence. I think there is still some reason to think that he may have something, based in part on claimed replications by far less colourful figures. But there is also evidence of dishonesty, especially in his dealings with his US backer, Industrial Heat.... My bets were settled in mid-2019. Our three judges, all physicists, agreed with my opponents that neither Brillouin nor Rossi had demonstrated evidence of LENR above 50% probability." Lol. jps (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article issues and classification

The article fails the B-class criteria #1 and #4. There is a March 2021 "citation needed" tag and a November 2015 "clarification needed". There are unsourced (yet untagged) paragraphs, subsections, and sections. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Cultural references

It's a bit silly the way some people don't want the reference to cold fusion being in a video game to be included, methinks. But I'm not bothered at all, it's just a pity that my time taken adding the link to it was wasted. Brian Josephson (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It could be okay if the source actually supported the text. Bon courage (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

off topic

I was working in the biology dept at MIT when the news 1st broke my boss, a very smart man and a biophysicist came in and said: I was talking to people in physics and they say that the theory says that Pons and Fleischman are off by 23 orders of magnitude by boss, a famous scientist not adverse to new ideas, looks down and quietly says: 23 orders of magnitude is a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not off-topic at all. It is however unsourced. If we can source it, it should be added to the article.

Have a look at http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/ which seems to be heading in the same direction. Andrewa (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Required: Li + D indicates reactants

The requirement fot Lithium indicates it is a reactant. Li6 + D equals 2x He4 no neutrons. 174.214.0.10 (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)