Misplaced Pages

Talk:Cold fusion/to do: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:Cold fusion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:25, 8 August 2008 edit75.61.107.45 (talk) Undid revision 220140490 by Pcarbonn (talk)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:54, 31 January 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(21 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
#Expand the Cold Fusion Research section to describe all types of experiments that reliable sources claim demonstrate cold fusion.
# describe the typical and best peer-reviewed research results reported in the literature reviews as total input-to-output power ratios.
#For each type of experiment, give a sense for the reported results. Place the results in context, for example comparing excess energy to input energy, measurement uncertainty, or chemical sources where appropriate. Give a sense for how many different groups have reported each type of result in reliable sources.
# update the history section with content from (listed in bibliography)
#For each type of experiment, identify major assumptions made in interpreting the results. Relate questionable assumptions and analysis to alternative non-nuclear explanations.
# add a summary from the "philosophy of science" perspective, e.g based on Lewenstein (p. 12-18)
#Describe transmutation claims made by reliable sources in greater detail, distinguishing measurement that have been related to episodes of excess heat, distinguishing byproducts measured to be proportionate to excess heat from byproducts detected in tiny amounts.
# remove points that are only attributable to conference proceedings.
#Explain potential errors in making nuclear measurements, such as those that Jones claimed he made in detecting neutrons. Perhaps explain the errors made by Fleischman and Pons. Explain if there are source of contamination that could explain the results. Identify if the detectors used have known reliability or precision issues within the range at which measurements were made.
#In summary of the above, convey to the reader the information in reliable sources that underlie the claims of cold fusion researchers that the body of data is compelling, and include any additional information or explanation necessary for the reader to make an independent informed judgment as to the merits of those claims.
# Ensure the article meets a neutral point of view.] 00:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:54, 31 January 2023

  1. Expand the Cold Fusion Research section to describe all types of experiments that reliable sources claim demonstrate cold fusion.
  2. For each type of experiment, give a sense for the reported results. Place the results in context, for example comparing excess energy to input energy, measurement uncertainty, or chemical sources where appropriate. Give a sense for how many different groups have reported each type of result in reliable sources.
  3. For each type of experiment, identify major assumptions made in interpreting the results. Relate questionable assumptions and analysis to alternative non-nuclear explanations.
  4. Describe transmutation claims made by reliable sources in greater detail, distinguishing measurement that have been related to episodes of excess heat, distinguishing byproducts measured to be proportionate to excess heat from byproducts detected in tiny amounts.
  5. Explain potential errors in making nuclear measurements, such as those that Jones claimed he made in detecting neutrons. Perhaps explain the errors made by Fleischman and Pons. Explain if there are source of contamination that could explain the results. Identify if the detectors used have known reliability or precision issues within the range at which measurements were made.
  6. In summary of the above, convey to the reader the information in reliable sources that underlie the claims of cold fusion researchers that the body of data is compelling, and include any additional information or explanation necessary for the reader to make an independent informed judgment as to the merits of those claims.
  7. Ensure the article meets a neutral point of view. ~Paul V. Keller 00:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)