Talk:Cold fusion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:25, 19 February 2012 edit84.106.26.81 (talk) →I know what you are going to say: new section← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 10:31, 21 December 2024 edit undoHob Gadling (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users18,466 edits →Rename article to LENR (Low-energy Nuclear Reactions)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~skip~~ to talk}}		{{Skip to talk}}
	{{~~talk~~ header~~\|noarchive=yes~~}}		{{Talk header}}
	{{controversial}}		{{controversial}}
			{{Not a forum}}
	{{mergedfrom\|List of references to cold fusion in popular culture}}
			{{Article history
	]
	<!-- Template:User article ban arb -->
	{{sanctions\|See ].}}
	{\| class="messagebox standard-talk"
	\|This article was the subject of mediation during 2009 at ].
	\|}
	{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=FAC		\|action1=FAC
	\|action1date=23:33, 16 Aug 2004		\|action1date=23:33, 16 Aug 2004
Line 18:		Line 12:
	\|action2=FAR		\|action2=FAR
	\|action2date=18:42, 6 January 2006		\|action2date=18:42, 6 January 2006
	\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article ~~removal candidates~~/Cold fusion		\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Cold fusion
	\|action2result=demoted		\|action2result=demoted
	\|action2oldid=34106403		\|action2oldid=34106403
Line 60:		Line 54:
	\|maindate=August 24, 2004		\|maindate=August 24, 2004
	\|currentstatus=DGA		\|currentstatus=DGA
			\|otd1date=2012-03-23\|otd1oldid=483531088
			\|otd2date=2014-03-23\|otd2oldid=600909183
			\|otd3date=2017-03-23\|otd3oldid=771633321
			\|otd4date=2019-03-23\|otd4oldid=888975125
			\|otd5date=2024-03-23\|otd5oldid=1214943052
	}}		}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WikiProject Physics ~~\|class=B~~ \|importance=High }}		{{WikiProject Physics \|importance=High }}
			{{WikiProject Energy\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Skepticism\|importance=High}}
	}}		}}

	{{press		{{press
	\|author= ]		\|author= ]
	\|date= ~~Tuesday,~~ 3 February 2009		\|date= 3 February 2009
	\|url= http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/so-is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1543527.html		\|url= http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/so-is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1543527.html
	\|title= So is Misplaced Pages cracking up?:It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Misplaced Pages is plagued by endless hoaxes, and lurches from one cash crisis to another. Will it become a footnote in the history of the web?		\|title= So is Misplaced Pages cracking up?:It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Misplaced Pages is plagued by endless hoaxes, and lurches from one cash crisis to another. Will it become a footnote in the history of the web?
Line 72:		Line 74:
	\|section= Home:Life&Style:Gadgets&Tech:Features		\|section= Home:Life&Style:Gadgets&Tech:Features
	\|collapsed=yes}}		\|collapsed=yes}}
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|topic=ps\|style=long}}
			{{merged-from \|List of references to cold fusion in popular culture}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = 42		\|counter = 48
	\|minthreadsleft = 5		\|minthreadsleft = 0
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1		\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|algo = old(~~10d~~)		\|algo = old(180d)
	\|archive = Talk:Cold fusion/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Cold fusion/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
Line 84:		Line 88:
	\|target=Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_index		\|target=Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_index
	\|mask=Talk:Cold fusion/Archive <#>		\|mask=Talk:Cold fusion/Archive <#>
	\|leading_zeros=0		\|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
			}}
	\|indexhere=yes}}
	{{archives\|search=yes\|bot=MiszaBot I\|age=10\|index= /Archive index\|auto=short}}

	== Current Science ==

	Current Science is not reliable. It is some low grade non-peer reviewed journal. ] (]) 23:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
	:For reference, their official webpage. --] (]) 00:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
	::] has an editorial board . It is a science magazine published by the Current Science Association along with the Indian Academy of Sciences. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal's 2009 impact factor of the journal is 0.782. Deleting this for not being RS is not OK. --] (]) 08:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

	::see ] --] (]) 08:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

	:::The paper by Krivit was accepted in two days and is obviously only reliable for the opinions of Krivit. I see no reason to waste time arguing with your POV pushing and stone-wall tactics for weeks on end at another board. {{mdash}}] (]) 08:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

	:::Also 0.782 is a low impact factor. They have an editorial board but as the paper was not reviewed I think this shows a lack of quality control. ] (]) 11:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

	:::It's also not a magazine, it identifies itself as a journal. ] (]) 12:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

	::::It's clearly not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Not a reliable source for science-related topics. ] (]) 12:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

	:::::I agree - there is no way that they could do an adequate peer-review in two days - this is a clear bust. It's not a RS. ] (]) 16:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Received on a Saturday (9 Feb 2008) and accepted on Sunday (10 Feb 2008)? That's quite odd. ] (]) 18:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
	::::::: ''"It is clearly not a peer-reviewed scientific journal"'' That is a very ignorant and arrogant and completely false statement. Look at the journal and reevaluate your conclusion, thank you --] (]) 11:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::Are you actually serious; Where on the site do they mention they perform peer review? Legitimate Peer review ''never'' takes a single day. Perhaps you are unaware what peer review is. Peer review is where experts in the same field review the paper and then submit their comments to the editors; the editor is not the peer. ] (]) 11:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::Perharps you are unaware how the real science publishing world ticks ''"Current Science is a multidisciplinary journal and therefore research and review papers of general significance that are written clearly and well organized will be given preference. All papers, solicited and unsolicited, will be first assessed by a Reviewing Editor. Papers found unsuitable in terms of the overall requirements of the journal will be returned to the authors. The others will be sent for detailed review. Authors of these papers will be notified of acceptance, need for revision or rejection of the paper. It may be noted that papers once rejected cannot be resubmitted. Illustrations and other materials to be reproduced from other publications must be properly credited; it is the authors’ responsibility to obtain permission for reproduc- tion of figures, tables, etc. from published sources (copies of letters of permission should be sent to the editor)."'' --] (]) 17:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::::I will say it in bold so you can read it more clearly; '''peer review is not an editor reviewing the paper, it is one of the peers of the applicant in his respective field'''. An editor looking at a paper is merely a review. ] (]) 17:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Claiming ''"Current Science is not reliable. It is some low grade non-peer reviewed journal."'' is complete nonsense for several reasons: 1) in Misplaced Pages statements must be verifiable. IRWolfie's personal requirement that peer reviewed grade proof is needed to verify the line in question: "In December 1990 Professor Richard Oriani of Minnesota University reported excess heat." is absurd. Any verifiable source can be used to describe what Oriani reported. We are not claiming that he succeeded in getting excess heat, we are writing that he reported excess heat. 2) IRWolfie did not provide ANY reliable evidence that "Current Science" is not peer reviewed. He took one single artifact regarding submission and acceptance of one single paper and used his personal OR to come to the conclusion that the whole journal "Current Science" is not peer reviewed, he even continued to lecture how peer reviewed works and how in his vision peer review is something completely different than what is stated on "Current Science's" own website. 3) IRWolfie statement that Current Science is a "low grade" journal is simply wrong, "Impact Factor" is not the one and only info to use. One must take into consideration that the journal is copublished in India, by the ]. Simply dismissing the whole journal the way IRWolfie does here, is madness. Trying to wrestle an argument by claiming utterly wrong things is a very unscientific approach. Using bolded text won't make it better, you might impress some inexperienced editor and that's about it. --] (]) 11:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

	:::::::::::: You attempted to find evidence that Current Science is peer reviewed and failed utterly. The onus is on you to show a source is reliable. Please stop wasting our time rehashing previous arguments;
	:::::::::::: 1. Peer review can not occur in 1 day. Editorial review can not occur in 1 day. A journal that engages in these practices can not be reliable. It is not ''my'' vision of peer review; it is self evident as others have agreed to above.
	:::::::::::: 2. You have ''consistently'' failed to demonstrate that Current Science is peer reviewed. They don't claim to be peer reviewed on their website.
	:::::::::::: 3. Consult ]
	:::::::::::: 4. You have not provided any evidence that Current Science is reliable. The Indian academy of sciences is not a large group, compare it to the IOP. That the journal is run by the Indian academy of Sciences does not automagically make it reliable.
	:::::::::::: 5. I am not demanding peer reviewed grade verifiability for the text, as it stands there is already an existing source(s) used to verify the statement "In December 1990 Professor Richard Oriani of Minnesota University reported excess heat.". Adding an unreliable source does not help verify the statement.
	:::::::::::: 6. You do realize that wikipedia does not use the scientific approach? The scientific method is for working on original research within science not for writing wikipedia articles. Also, what exactly is your scientific background to tell me what a "very unscientific approach" is?
	:::::::::::: stop ]. ] (]) 16:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

	::::::::::::: "Current Science" is listed on ] as one of ''"over 3,700 of the world's leading scientific and technical journals across 100 disciplines."''. You cherry picked one article to come to your conclusion "...some low grade non-peer reviewed journal". Current Science is one of 3769 scientific journals indexed in Science citation index, thus the journal is not "low grade". On the contrary, it is evidence of the journal's reliability.
	::::::::::::: The dean of the University of Colorado Boulder Libraries put "Current Science" on a list of "peer-reviewed open access journals".
	::::::::::::: I consulted ], it reads: ''"This page does not address reliability in context of the social sciences, biographical detail, social or political impact or controversy, or related non-scientific issues, even when these are presented in the context of a natural science article."''.
	::::::::::::: ] nevertheless had some interesting infos: ''"Journal articles come in many types, including: original research, reviews, expert summaries, news, editorials, advocacy pieces, speculation, book reviews, correspondence, biographies, and eulogies."'' According to Current Science they indeed have a long list of different article categories. Not all of those article categories go through peer review. The article in question is in the "General Article" category. Looking at several other "General Articles" it seems they have a much shorter review (1-2 weeks) in comparison to "Research Articles" where the review takes up several months.
	::::::::::::: So from this we can conclude that: 1) current science is on of 3769 leading scientific journals. 2) the "Research Articles" undergo peer review that takes up to several months 3) the "General Articles" mostly undergo a review that normally takes 1-2 weeks. --] (]) 20:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

	:<s>What is the specific source article we are discussing here?</s> .] Krivit is an established tertiary source author with Oxford University Press and the American Chemical Society if I recall, so I'd like to see what he wrote. ] (]) 18:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

	Wolfie - you claim to be a physicist. You are not! You are still in training. That can perhaps excuse your arrogance and un-self-challenged assurance; but, please don't embarrass an honorable profession by claiming to be a physicist already. You and Vobisdu have also libeled an honorable institution (Current Science) and defamed the editors who, if you are actually as good as you think you are, you might aspire to emulate.
	: "Current Science is not reliable. It is some low grade non-peer reviewed journal. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2012
	: "It's clearly not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Not a reliable source for science-related topics. Dominus Vobisdu : (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)"
	Since I have a paper presently under technical review at Current Science, I knew that you were '''lying'''. Your statement: "Where on the site do they mention they perform peer review?" betrayed you. The only comment about peer review on the American Physical Society journals are for their on-line journals. Would you make a similar insinuation about Physical Review? However, for your information, in the INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS (http://cs-test.ias.ac.in/cs/php/pdf/publish2011.pdf), Current Science states:
	"All papers, solicited and unsolicited, will be first assessed by a Reviewing Editor. Papers found unsuitable in terms of the overall requirements of the journal will be returned to the authors. The others will be sent for '''detailed review'''. Authors of these papers will be notified of acceptance, need for revision, or rejection of the paper." (My emphasis)

	Your concept of the review process indicates how naive you are about the politics of publication. The editor has the power to reject papers out of hand. (However, they can be over-ruled by their employer. As has been recently demonstrated by the AIP, when an editor was going to publish proceedings of the LENR Sessions at an ACS conference.) An editor can send a paper to reviewers that he knows will reject it. Likewise, he can call up peer reviewers and get 1-day turn-around for acceptance or rejection to meet a deadline. I can generally review an eight-page paper in 3 hours. I could get an emailed paper in the morning and have the comments and recommendations back to the editor before lunch. I generally do it on the weekends; but, it can be done rapidly.

	Many journals today ask the authors to submit several names as reviewers and allow rejection of some names for that role. The editor can choose to use the recommendation or not. This can speed things up immensely.

	In summary, your and DV's comments and attitudes are so clearly POV, when you are willing to say what you have, that it should be sufficient to have both of you permanently banned from the article. I will be willing to support anyone who would start the process. ] (]) 20:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

	::I am bringing things to ANI as it seems to be increasingly focussed on making claims against me and others. . ] (]) 09:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
	:::::I, for one, am learning alot from this discussion about the editorial process and catagories for peer review. Separate from the publishing world (although not apart) is the important scientific review process which is the attempt to further a body of knowledge by replicating a published experiment; improving instrumentation and addressing possible errors in order to verify or refute published observations (scientific method). Most referenced statements found in this article are from the publishing world. The peer reviewed work may have had, a cursory examination if an op-ed piece by a professor, or a detailed technical examination if a submitted techinical scientific paper. Weight is given accordingly. This part I am not to clear on. Is information from a second or third laborotory scientific review of an experiment a new document (primary) or a secondary source as it is a review (scientific review) of a previously published work?--] (]) 20:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
	::::::'']'' shows an ] of 0.782 (2009). Is there any conceivable reason we should treat it as worth paying attention to, when clearly authors in other journals systematically choose not to? This is a journal which headlines with "All articles published in Current Science, especially editorials, opinions and commentaries, letters and book reviews, are deemed to reflect the individual views of the authors and not the official points of view, either of the Current Science Association or of the Indian Academy of Sciences." One can admire the spirit of openness, but it does nothing for assurance that there has been adequate fact checking, let alone systematic review of methods.] <small>]</small> 21:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
	::::::: LSD ... On the 2011 SJR rating, '']'' is in the top 1/3 of all rated journals (nearly 19,000 of them). Based on the H index, it is in the top 1/10. You have made assumptions, innuendo, and statements based on conjecture and no apparent knowledge. Is it intentional or just Hubris? ] (]) 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::Ah, there's the rub. You are looking at a different criterion than everyone else. You could simply have said so, rather than engaging in counterproductive personal attacks. Indeed, amongst journals calling themselves "multidisciplinary" ''Current Science'' ] of 55 ranks 7/77 and its SJR of 0.053 ranks 18/77. These are certainly respectable values, though still far below the top-ranked (by IF, SJR, and H-index) ''Nature'', ''Science'', and ''PNAS''. With that information, I would agree that the journal is not so obscure as to be a reason to question the reliability of the paper. ] <small>]</small> 19:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::: LSD Sorry to get 'personal. However, I am tired of the mindless efforts of the anti-CF crowd to keep out any positive information on developments in CF. You were kind enough to provide a link that actually showed Current Science to be ranked higher than Naturwissenschaften. Yet the issue will soon be lost and the positive references will again 'disappear' from the article. I worked 2 weeks to get this group to accept a positive comment from Scaramuzzi's year 2000 paper. There were 9 negative quotes from him about CF referenced at the time. Finally, I was allowed to include a single positive statement from a 'major' source of negative quotes in the article (rather than deleting his reference entirely as I had suggested). If one reads the article, it is obvious that Scaramuzzi is a proponent of CF. A good scientist always includes the references that he is arguing against. That single positive statement has now been deleted from the article and 8 of the negative statements remain. Is it a surprise that I ask about some of the editor's POV, purpose, or source of paycheck?] (]) 04:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::LeadSongDog, I wonder if ] and ] are going to agree with you on that, after all they concluded that: ''"Current Science is not reliable. It is some low grade non-peer reviewed journal."'' and ''"It's clearly not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Not a reliable source for science-related topics."''. --] (]) 16:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

	== Workshop this before replacing it ==

	I removed the following text from the article:

	:''In a January 2012 video presentation on LENR, NASA spoke about ongoing research at ]<ref name=NASA_LENRvideo></ref>. In April 2011 ], ] at NASA Langley Research Center, had stated that LENR is a very "interesting and promising" new technology that is likely to advance "fairly rapidly." <ref name=Bushnell>{{citation\|last=Bushnell\|first=Dennis M.\|title=The Future of Energy (Interview with Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist of NASA Langley)\|url=http://www.evworld.com/evworld_audio/dennis_bushnell_part1.mp3\|accessdate=3 June 2011\|work=EV World\|type=audio\|at=04:24\|date=2011-04-23}}</ref> In a recent presentation researchers from ] expressed a great potential for LENR.<ref></ref><ref></ref><ref name=NASAGRC2011></ref>''

	Problems:

	#NASA does not speak and cannot speak and certainly a video that is hosted at TechnologyGateway: doesn't mean that the agency has somehow "spoken" on the topic. In particular, it is unclear whether any of the videos hosted there are subject to review by any NASA personnel.
	#The personal opinions of Dennis Bushnell on the "interesting and promising" new technology is not an indication of research and this statement probably does not belong ''anywhere'' in the article, but certainly is out-of-place in the "ongoing research" section.
	#The statement "In a recent presentation researchers from ] expressed a great potential for LENR." is first of all ungrammatical but secondly is based off of a Russian news-media site and a primary source talk slides that do not indicate anything but the personal opinions of a particular person giving a talk. It certainly is not indicative of ongoing research that is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article.

	Stop hosting this kind of shoddily-researched promotionalism, please.

	Shoddily-researched promotionalism sounds like an emotionally based ad-hominen attack to me, and not particularly professional or neutral, although masking as such. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	] (]) 22:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

	:Again, I invite others to judge for themselves: , , , , , , , , , . ] (]) 22:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

	::Please see ]. Those were only the personal opinions of scientists Bushnell and Zawodny, who work at NASA. It was never the official position of NASA. --] (]) 23:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

	:::Hm, personal opinions embodied in their official work product and technical memoranda? In any case we still have this on : "Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently show evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and unloading of deuterium into and out of bulk palladium. At one time called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability. The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC is applied to improve the diagnostics for investigating the anomalous heat in LENR." ] (]) 03:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

	::::The deletion of any mentioning of NASA from the article is ridiculous. I recently moved the NASA paragraph back from the Publications section to the Ongoing section and also added the mentioning of the NASA video.
	::::The wording "NASA spoke about ..." of my addition could be corrected, but completely deleting NASA from the cold fusion article is obviously POV pushing.
	::::The section about NASA should not lead the reader to believe that NASA as an institution is endorsing LENR as being real, but should show to the reader that research at NASA is ongoing and that several researchers at NASA do not share the mainstream view on LENR. The statements are all perfectly attributed to the originators.
	::::As I stated in the previous discussion ] it would be a good idea to include Zawodny's explanation of how the video should be understood. --] (]) 08:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Please find proper sources for your claims. ] (]) 14:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
	::::::It is impossible to find sources that discuss LENR and at the same time appeal to you. Two articles in main russian news outlets, but you don't like them because they are russian ? A peer reviewed article mentioning LENR experiemtns at NASA, but you won't like them because .... the journal is .... let me think ... not science nor nature ? You keep accusing me of POV pushing, stop that ! --] (]) 16:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

	::What purpose does it serve to withhold this information from article readers? ] (]) 20:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

	The deletion of any mentioning of NASA from the article does indeed look ridiculous. But ok, if those are our standards we should delete all skeptical talking points from our science article, unless they have been peer reviewed of course. For example the DOE report, that scores well below the NASA video. '''They chose not to do the science''' by a single vote majority. Definitely not something of a quality that is going to refute NASA or SPAWAR. It simply isn't worth mentioning they chose not to do the science.

	Or am I wrong to think the same standards should apply to both kinds of sources? ] (]) 14:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
	:It would be nice if they did. ] (]) 17:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

	Would someone please explain in why we can't quote NASA's official website to say: "Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently show evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and unloading of deuterium into and out of bulk palladium. At one time called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability." ] (]) 21:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

	:Because John D. Wrbanek is not a ] for the claims. {{mdash}}] (]) 00:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

	::He ''is'' a reliable source for the fact that NASA makes those claims on their web site, which with attribution is all that's necessary to include. And for what reason is he not for the claims themselves? ] (]) 01:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

	:::Tests made ''in 1989''. There were hundreds of test in 1989, and reliable sources say there were zero experiments that could replicate CF reliably. --] (]) 03:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

	::::And other reliable sources say that many experiments reported excess heat. So we have conflicting sources. As WP is not about truth, but all about NPOV thus both views can be mentioned. The weight should be on the mainstream view, but as per ] applying correct WEIGHT does not equal ] the non-mainstream view. Even if you dislike it. Enric, the way I see it, you are dismissing from the article an attributed quotation from a reliable self published source by an expert of the field on the grounds that it conflicts with the mainstream view. --] (]) 11:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

	:::::No, we have ''some'' proponents of CF claiming that they have reliable replication, some other proponents saying that they are working towards reliable replication but still not quite there, and mainstream saying that there is no reliable replication.

	:::::And, again, here we have only the personal opinions of researchers who work at NASA, not the official position of NASA. And the patent video is being hyped. See again ]. --] (]) 11:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

	::::::We do not know the official position of "NASA as an institution" on LENR. And that means both ways, not pro, not contra. Of course we must avoid giving the impression that "NASA as an institution" states that "it works" and "endorses" LENR. However, not mentioning anything about LENR research at NASA in order to avoid giving the wrong impression, to me, is an overreaction and not distinghuishable very similar to censoring. Casual WP-readers might find it very useful to find answers to these questions:
	::::::*Did NASA file a patent on a LENR related device ? (yes/no)
	::::::*Does NASA host a video on their servers discussing the topic of the patent and in which a NASA researcher depicts LENR in a positive light that is contrary to the mainstream science view ? (yes/no).
	::::::*Has NASA performed LENR research in the past ? (for secondary RS see also the mention in the peer reviewed paper from Xing Z. Li - 2006, Journal of Fusion Energy Volume 25, Numbers 3-4, 175-180, DOI: 10.1007/s10894-006-9023-8) (yes/no).
	::::::*Has a chief scientist from one of NASA's research centers lately discussed LENR in a positive way contrary to the mainstream view ? (yes/no).
	::::::*Does NASA mention LENR on their ? (yes/no)

	::::::We have reliable secondary sources, reliable self published sources and reliable primary sources mentioning LENR research at NASA.
	::::::We have FORBES mentioning the freaking video . I think the "hype" is only in the heads of those who don't want to hear about it.
	::::::We have discussed NASA and LENR at length on these talk pages: ] , ] , ]
	::::::Let's work towards a reasonable mentioning of LENR research at NASA in the article, thanks. --] (]) 12:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

	I have put NASA back in with slight rewording --] (]) 08:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

	:More news coverage on NASA and LENR --] (]) 08:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

	== Remove Sentence from Conferences Section ==

	The following sentence from this section is a little confusing to me having read the paper and book referenced. It also confuses the article.

	(first part of sentence) By 1994, attendees offered no criticism to papers and presentations for fear of giving ammunition to external critics; thus allowing the proliferation of crackpots and hampering the conduct of serious science, (second part of sentence) and by 2002, critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences.

	I have deleted the first version of my edit proposal after feedback from the following folks who were kind enough to comment after reading it.

	The first version can be viewed at the edit history.--] (]) 14:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

	::*Your comment here seems like a stream of conciousness, can you please state what text or sources you have issue with. Then can you show what changes you propose and based on which reliable sources. ] (]) 10:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

	:*"critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences" should be sourceable to several RS. There was this scientist ] who went to the conferences to make questions and ask for a cup of tea heated with a CF cell, and he is cited as the last critic who persisted in going until he died in 2001. I can't search sources right now, have a Discovery article --] (]) 11:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

	:*I have no idea what you are trying to achieve --] (]) 23:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC) More input please...--] (]) 12:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Does this help clarify ] --] (]) 12:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

	:::::::::I understand. Your input has helped me realize the need for a clearer revision. --] (]) 13:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

	A few of you have commented. From this I've learned some things... thank you. I will collapse my earlier introduction to my edit request in a few days. Here is a revision. I hope it answers some of your questions and concerns.

	'''Conferences'''

	The following sentence from this section is a little confusing to me having read the paper and book referenced. It also confuses the article.

	(first part of sentence) By 1994, attendees offered no criticism to papers and presentations for fear of giving ammunition to external critics; thus allowing the proliferation of crackpots and hampering the conduct of serious science, (second part of sentence) and by 2002, critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences.

	Cold fusion researchers were for many years unable to get papers accepted at scientific meetings, prompting the creation of their own conferences. The first International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF) was held in 1990, and has met every 12 to 18 months since. By 1994, attendees offered no criticism to papers and presentations for fear of giving ammunition to external critics; thus allowing the proliferation of crackpots and hampering the conduct of serious science, and by 2002, critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences. With the founding in 2004 of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS), the conference was renamed the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science—an example of the approach the cold fusion community has adopted in avoiding the term cold fusion and its negative connotations. Cold fusion research is often referenced by proponents as "low-energy nuclear reactions", or LENR, but according to sociologist Bart Simon the "cold fusion" label continues to serve a social function in creating a collective identity for the field.

	The third sentence:

	“By 1994, attendees offered no criticism to papers and presentations for fear of giving ammunition to external critics; thus allowing the proliferation of crackpots and hampering the conduct of serious science, and by 2002, critics and skeptics stopped attending these conferences.”

	This sentence conveys that the conference:

	:*Allows a proliferation of crackpots and hampers serious science due to the lack of criticism and review of papers and experiments, which is lacking due to fear of external critics.

	:*Is where only these crackpots attend. (the sentence isn’t really clear on this)

	:*Has no critics or skeptics attend.

	I would like to see the sentence removed. It confuses the article lending a lot of weight to discrediting these conferences in the mind of the reader. The sentence, constructed as it is, misconstrues both authors intent.

	The first half of the sentence is constructed from,  "Whatever Happened to Cold Fusion?"  by David Goodstein.

	His paper contains no footnotes that I can use to verify his claims or opinions, though it is a good paper full of insight about what went wrong during the early development of the field of cold fusion. He is a qualified physicist with a deep understanding of cold fusion research.

	The paper has 41 paragraphs which I note as reference points.

	This sentence is put together from paragraph (2). Letters footnote the pertinent reference points from paragraph (2). As found in wikipedia the beginning of the sentence is, “By 1994 attendees offered no criticism...” This is a definitive no, meaning none.

	While the author uses “almost never”(a1) or “”there is little”(a2) or "tend to be"(a3) or even “don’t receive the normal critical review.”(a1)
	(''perhaps they receive abnormal critical review'')

	Clearly here the authors words are taken out of context and this needs correcting.

	(a) '''By 1994, attendees offered no criticism to papers and presentations''' (b)for fear of giving ammunition to external critics; thus (c)allowing the proliferation of crackpots and (d)hampering the conduct of serious science.

	:*(a1) almost never published in refereed scientific journals, with the result that those works don't receive the normal critical scrutiny that science requires

	:*(a2) there is little internal criticism.

	:*(a3) Experiments and theories tend to be accepted at face value

	(2)Contrary to appearances, however, this was no normal scientific conference. Cold Fusion is a pariah field, cast out by the scientific establishment. Between Cold Fusion and respectable science there is virtually no communication at all. Cold fusion papers are almost never published in refereed scientific journals, with the result that those works don't receive the normal critical scrutiny that science requires. (a1)On the other hand, because the Cold-Fusioners see themselves as a community under siege, (a2)there is little internal criticism. (a3)Experiments and theories tend to be accepted at face value, (b)for fear of providing even more fuel for external critics, if anyone outside the group was bothering to listen. (c)In these circumstances, crackpots flourish, making (d)matters worse for those who believe that there is serious science going on here.

	Besides the conflict of this contextual error perpetrated on Misplaced Pages; we have the following conflict in the authors paper in regards to criticism and reviews going on from these conferences.

	The first third of the paper is mainly about Cold Fusion as a field cast out by the scientific establishment, a pariah field. The author is explaining the consequences of an erosion of the boundaries of experts, intermediaries, and the layman in regards to the failure of science.

	In the rest of the paper the author mainly speaks of cold fusion research, nuclear theory, new theory, etc.

	This is where he makes numerous contradictions from his second paragraphs statements in regards to healthy criticism and its attendant benefits in regards to cold fusion research.

	These are 12 examples of the author referring to criticism, review, and or responses to review and critique within the field of cold fusion.

	These contradictions show perhaps a conflict within the incomplete understanding of "news room science" and its affect on failure, as seen by others in the scientific community and eyes of the public.

	Either way it weakens the argument for taking the authors words out of context for the use found here in wikipedia.

	I. (31)Reacting to criticism of the primitive technique they had used to detect neutrons, they purchased the best neutron detection system in the world, essentially identical to the one used by Charlie Barnes at Caltech. (''criticism from review'')

	II. (31)No one could accuse them any longer of being unsophisticated about neutron work. (''infers others review and pass judgment'')

	III. (32)The lack of this kind of control experiment had been one of the points of criticism of Pons and Fleischmann. (''not counted/prior to the first conference'')

	IV. (34)Nevertheless, his message was an optimistic one for Cold Fusion. In essence (although Franco didn't say it in these words) each of the criticisms that Nate Lewis had correctly leveled at the experiments of Pons and Fleischmann had been successfully countered by new experiments reported at the conference. (''“successfully countered” infers response to others review and judgment'')

	V. (35)One of the criticisms that Nate had used with telling effect is that local hot-spots often develop in electrolysis experiments (Nate is himself an electrochemist, and a consummate experimentalist). (''criticism from review'')

	VI. (35)To counter this argument, Franco could point to the design of the cell used by his own Frascati group, which carefully averaged the temperature of the entire cell, rather than measuring it at a single point (Many other groups had introduced mechanical stirrers into their cells). (''"to counter this argument" and “could point to” infers response to others review and judgement'')

	VII. (35)That would be true, the critics replied, if the chemicals were being generated at the same time as the heat. (''at the 1993 Maui conference'')

	VIII. (36)Finally, one of the most damaging criticisms of Pons and Fleischmann was that they had failed to do control experiments. (''not counted/prior to the first conference'')

	IX. (36)Franco dutifully reported these results at the Rome seminar, expressing only muted disapproval ("In my opinion, these results have not been consolidated," he said). (''example of a report of a review and critique delivered by a conference attendee'')

	X. (39)The audience at Rome, certainly the senior professors who were present, listened politely, but they did not hear what Franco was saying (that much became clear from the questions that were asked at the end of the seminar, and comments that were made afterward). (''infers senior professors criticized the report from IX'' )

	XI. (40)However, I have looked at their cells, and looked at their data, and it's all pretty impressive. The Japanese experiment showing that heat nearly always results when x is greater than 0.85 looks even more impressive on paper. It seems a particularly elegant, well designed experiment, at least to the untutored eye of a physicist (what do I know about electrochemistry?) (''author reviewing data and papers presented at a conference'')

	XII. (40)What all these experiments really need is critical examination by accomplished rivals intent on proving them wrong. (''author is helping in this regards'')

	Whatever Happened to Cold Fusion?  by David Goodstein

	(12) The Cold Fusion story seemed to stand science on its head, not only because it was played out in the popular press without the ritual of peer-review, but also because both sides of the debate violated what are generally supposed to be the central canons of scientific logic.

	I will finish this when input and time arrives.--] (]) 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

	:I seriously suggest you shorten your argument. Over 10,000 words is extremely long for an article discussion thread. ] (]) 16:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC) THANKS--] (]) 12:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
	:::Do you think my argument is valid and that I should remove the sentence now?--] (]) 19:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
	I have reported this edit war and Gregory Goble's ] violation ]. Others are welcome to comment in line with that noticeboard's standard practices. ] (]) 01:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC) THANKS my bad--] (]) 12:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

	::::::THANKS for posting the following on my talk page:

	::::::This is your talk page. Enric Naval may not see your comments here. Are you a native english speaker or are you making use of a service such as google translate? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)---- THANKS--] (]) 12:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

	::::::Your contributions on the talk page are incoherent ramblings. It is impossible for other editors to understand your wish to delete the text you keep removing. Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)---THANKS--] (]) 12:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

	::::::Gregory, I have reported your WP:3RR violation here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gregory Goble reported by User:EdChem .28Result: .29 You are welcome to post in that section should you wish. EdChem (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)---THANKS--] (]) 12:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
	::::::::I can not find it at: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Can you help me locate it?--] (]) 13:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::It was archived ]. --] (]) 19:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
	Thanks Enric Naval, EdChem, Binksternet, IRWolfie, POVBrigand, and all other editors on this site. What I want to know now is, does anyone have an objection to my deleting this sentence? Please state your objection. I will respond, to the point, and in a timely manner. --] (]) 12:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

	I have only addressed the first part of the sentence (the predicate). If the predicate of a sentence is fictional or false that which follows usually follows as such. I have prepared to reason the grounds for the dismisal of the second part of the sentence. Please read on this talk page -''Add to: In popular culture - Cold Fusion''-. There is an interlapping relevence to the subject line of the second half of the sentence I just delete edited.--] (]) 15:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

	== All mention of NASA has been deleted from this article ==

	How does this help readers? This article is about, in part, a controversy. The fact that NASA is working on it is controversial, and there are several reliable NASA sources saying so, including their own public web site. What are the arguments for and against deleting all mention of NASA from the entire article? ] (]) 18:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

	:see ]. The deletion of all mention of NASA was done by ] - ]. It seems that 2 editors support this act of, what I think can be described as, censorship. Completely irrational and conflicting with WP policies. --] (]) 21:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

	:::WOW For how long? Odds are... see the latest. Wiki AbCom discussion Special Contributions. Intetesting.--] (]) 13:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

	::::What are you referring to? ] (]) 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

	:NASA don't seem to take it too seriously: ] (]) 13:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

	::That is dated November 12, 2009. is dated December 16, 2011: '''"Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently show evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and unloading of deuterium into and out of bulk palladium. At one time called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability. The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC is applied to improve the diagnostics for investigating the anomalous heat in LENR."''' What purpose does it serve to withhold this information from article readers? ] (]) 20:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

	:::Furthermore, IRWolfie draws his conclusion to support his prejudiced POV. "NASA don't seem to take it too seriously" is a weasel phrase, what does "too seriously" mean ? It is not a direct quote and from the full quote there is nothing that supports: "NASA don't seem to take it too seriously", on the contrary.
	:::''"What about Cold Fusion? - First, this effect should NEVER have been dubbed "cold fusion." It should have been called an '''"anomalous heat effect."''' That means you '''don't know what's going on''', but it involves heat. The part about "we don't know what's going on" is still very true. - Most evidence points to this being a dead end, '''but not all the evidence'''. If I recall correctly, '''about 30% or the replications for producing heat work''', and 70% do not. The evidence also does not indicate that a normal nuclear reaction is occurring. Heat?- maybe, sometimes. '''Nuclear fusion as we know it?- no.''' - It is not being studied very seriously in the US, in fact it is generally frowned upon, but some countries like France and Japan '''are still looking into it.''' - If it is real and if it is useful, then someday, someone will make a practical and unambiguous device out of it. If it is not real, you're still probably going to be hearing lots of stories about it for years to come -- an "Elvis sighting" phenomena." "''--] (]) 07:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

	::::Can you keep your personal attacks to yourself. ] (]) 15:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

	:::::That is not a personal attack. Stop with your baseless accusations. Other editors have noted before that you don't know what a personal attack is. --] (]) 08:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

	:::::This is not a personal attack IRWolfie but an observation, you are blatantly biased on this topic and might consider recusing yourself. I appreciate the efforts to hold the article to a high standard, but not the attempt to shape the article to a particular POV by removing verifiable fact.] (]) 13:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

	I have put NASA back in with slight rewording --] (]) 08:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
	:: Where is it??! I can't find it... and I just gave a positive appreciation of this article, as it overall gives a fair impression. Looks like I must either alter my appreciation or fix the omission... ] (]) 18:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
	:: Addendum: Yes NASA is certainly a reliable source for a claim about ongoing research at NASA, it is obviously notable and that fact is definitely interesting. ] (]) 18:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
	:::It was deleted again for dubious reasons. There are numerous primary and secondary RS for the fact that NASA researchers are working on LENR. Deleting it is not in line with WP-policies. --] (]) 19:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
	:::: It could be a matter of neutral presentation of facts (for some reason I have a problem with reviving old versions, so I can't know)... OK I'll try to do something about it, and else I'll revise the rating that I gave. ] (]) 20:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
	:More news coverage on NASA and LENR --] (]) 08:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
	] seems to forbid the kind of sourcing ] was attempting. ] (]) 21:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
	: Not at all, your edit is uncalled for as already explained even on this page. ] explains: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages". Moreover, my edit is based on the general consensus here and it appears that deleting reference to NASA is against ] which is the main policy of Misplaced Pages. Please refrain from deleting other people's edits without first discussing it. ] (]) 21:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
	::I undid your edit again because it actually violates the policy you yourself cite. The webpage cited is a repository of presentations about research that has been done at NASA over the years. There is no indication that the publications are supporting the claim that ongoing research is happening under the aegis of a NASA-funded research program. The closest you can come to is the statement: "The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC is applied to improve the diagnostics for investigating the anomalous heat in LENR." This could simply mean, "read about what we did in 1989 if you think cold fusion works." We are not empowered to interpret anything beyond this and the presentation itself is clearly in violation of the PSTS guideline which is restricting the ] happening: trying to convince the world that NASA is supporting cold fusion in order to gain a leg-up in E-cat marketing, for example. iIn light of the ample evidence found in, for example, , that the advocacy of certain NASA employees does not an endorsement make, it is irresponsible for Misplaced Pages to promote this alternative reality where . Wait for a proper press-release from NASA. If it happens, then we'll change the page. ] (]) 23:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
	::: Thanks for the clarification, but again your action was completely uncalled for: you could have '''rephrased''' the sentence in order to avoid an imagined misunderstanding that you apparently fear could arise from my citation of facts. And you seem to ignore the factual statement itself. This is a wiki encyclopedia and its purpose is to '''provide''' information, not to delete it. However, whatever you write must correspond to the sources and your suggested interpretation here is in conflict with the facts, as everyone can easily verify by downloading the reference from the NASA site. Also, you may '''add''' a reference to an equally reliable source in the way that you suggest here; as a matter of fact, you could already have done that! Thus you make me waste my time for nothing. Persistent deletions of facts are not constructive but hindering the development of the page to a good article and by now we could have already finalised the text together. Please cooperate in a constructive way to make the article again a good article that is not disputed. The only remaining cause of dispute - and which will alter my rating of this article if it persists - appears to be the unwarranted omission of facts. Perhaps people will agree to remove the tag after we add the lacking facts. ] (]) 08:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

	There are hundreds of thousands of websites which contain presentations on LENR. Devoting an entire paragraph to an obscure NASA website is a gross violation of ]. The Forbes blog is not a ] for anything but the opinion of the blog author and per ] should not be used here since there are plenty of other sources that are far better and deserve more attention. Finally, please keep in mind ] here. There is nothing to indicate that in the grand scheme of things that this will be remembered as important at all. This topic which has been around for some twenty-two years has had supporters arguing every few years that a new breakthrough or new notice has happened. Misplaced Pages needs to wait before advertising this "NASA source". There seems to be no indication or argument made that this is ]y enough to include an entire paragraph in a top-level article about cold fusion. ] (]) 00:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

	== Add to: In popular culture - Cold Fusion ==

	I propose adding the following two sentences to: In popular culture - Cold Fusion

	''Popular opinion notwithstanding, researchers in well-respected laboratories continue to produce new and rigorous work, even though the existence of the phenomenon is circumscribed by the widespread belief that the phenomenon is not real.''

	''The survival of cold fusion research signals the need for a more complex understanding of the social dynamics of scientific knowledge making; the boundaries between experts, intermediaries, and the lay public; and the conceptualization of failure in the history of science and technology.''

	They are taken from the back cover of the book:

	Undead science: science studies and the afterlife of cold fusion, by Bart Simon.

	Everything in the section, In popular culture - Cold Fusion, is from his book as is the following.

	By 1990, the promise of an energy revolution died as scientific opinion favored the skeptics. Nevertheless, many scientists continue to do research on cold fusion, an instance of what Bart Simon calls “undead science.”

	Simon argues that in spite of widespread skepticism in the scientific community, there has been a continued effort to make sense of the controversial phenomenon.

	Researchers in well-respected laboratories continue to produce new and rigorous work. In this manner, cold fusion research continues to exist long after the controversy has subsided, even though the existence of the phenomenon is circumscribed by the widespread belief that the phenomenon is not real.

	Bart Simon is an assistant professor in the department of sociology and anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. --] (]) 20:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Perhaps a full professor now? I'm not sure of his present title.--] (]) 21:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

	:I don't think this qualifies as popular culture. The paperback version is currently ranked #2,984,547 on Amazon and it is ranked in the Kindle store as #576,156. ] (]) 21:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
	:::Have you read this from 'In popular culture - Cold Fusion' on Misplaced Pages? All of the following comes from the book you provide rankings for: Some scientists use cold fusion as a synonym of outrageous claims made with no supporting proof, and courses of ethics in science give it as an example of pathological science. It has appeared as a joke in Murphy Brown and The Simpsons. It was adopted as a product name by software Coldfusion and a brand of protein bars (Cod Fusion Foods). It has also appeared in commercial advertising as a synonym for impossible science, for example a 1995 ad of Pepsi Max. In the 1994 comedy I.Q., Albert Einstein makes up a "cold fusion" science to help his niece start a romantic relationship.
	:::The plot of The Saint, a 1997 action-adventure film, parallels the story of Fleischmann and Pons, but has a very different ending. The science is rejected by scientific skepticism in the US, but USSR scientists manage to build a working generator and start an age of "infinite energy". The film might have affected the public perception of cold fusion, pushing it further into the science fiction realm.^ a b c d e f g Simon 2002, pp. 91-95,116-118 ''Popular opinion notwithstanding, researchers in well-respected laboratories continue to produce new and rigorous work, even though '''the existence of the phenomenon''' is '''circumscribed by the widespread belief''' that the phenomenon is not real. The survival of cold fusion research signals the need for a more complex understanding of the social dynamics of scientific knowledge making; the boundaries between experts, intermediaries, and '''the lay public'''; and '''the conceptualization of failure''' in the history of science and technology.'' You suggest I should not add the last two sentences from the same source on perceptions of cold fusion in popular culture. Why? Do you think that we (editors sourcing it) say the book is popular? No it's not very popular (low sales) but it is popular to source it on Misplaced Pages.(7 times here and many times elsewhere)--] (]) 23:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

	:::This articles' history is rich and worth reviewing. "In popular culture" is a recent addition originally appearing 10:53 Jan. 4, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=469488903#In_popular_culture , posted by 79.181.36.116 (talk)‎ (130,206 bytes) (→Patents: Merge from List of references to cold fusion in popular culture) The original was a great list, lots'a fun to read and the page has this guideline -This "In popular culture" section may contain minor or trivial references. Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, and remove trivial references- Four hours or so later it was completely changed to its present version here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cold_fusion&oldid=469515328 on 14:47, 4 January 2012‎ by Enric Naval (talk \| contribs)‎ (128,867 bytes) (→In popular culture: rewrite using a reliable source) (undo) The two versions are worthy of a comparison or two.--] (]) 03:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::To:] (])
	:::::::My bad... first appeared around 2007... then gone... now back... followed with the four hour quick change edit by Enric Naval to the version now seen on Misplaced Pages. Crazy edit history that I, for one, do not understand,,, yet! Help? --] (]) 13:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

	Olorinish,
	You made a possibly negative comment to the talk on this proposed edit to cold fusion. I have asked for clarification. Do you care to clarify or comment now before I proceed?
	Posted to Olorinish Talk at right about this time... --] (]) 13:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

	Other editors must have a thought or two... comments, objections, or better yet suggestions; how to improve this section of the article together. Please chime into: In popular culture - Cold Fusion.--] (]) 13:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

	:If the question at hand is adding the sentences from the ] from the back of
	:*{{cite book \| title=Undead science: science studies and the afterlife of cold fusion \|first=Bart \|last=Simon \| year=2002 \|publisher=Rutgers University Press \| isbn=978-0813531540 \| page=p.49}}
	:to the article, I oppose. First, they are poorly written and they are a now ten year old observation made by an anonymous editor at Rutgers University press. They lack any timeliness and any authority. The Misplaced Pages editor has already done a good job of summarizing the relevant content of Simon's book in this section. ] (]) 14:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
	Unfounded

	You think the text sourced is, “a blurb” and “are poorly written and they are a now ten year old observation made by an anonymous editor at Rutgers University press” and I say this is a groundless speculation. The most relevant statement found on the back cover is taken from the authors’ words found in the body of the book. You state, “The Misplaced Pages editor has already done a good job of summarizing the relevant content of Simon's book in this section” and I say he has taken the authors words out of context and that the most relevant point the author makes in this regard (popular culture) is, (Popular opinion notwithstanding) ''“researchers in well-respected laboratories continue to produce new and rigorous work, even though the existence of the phenomenon is circumscribed by the widespread belief '''''' that the phenomenon is not real. The survival of cold fusion (research) signals the need for a more complex understanding of the social dynamics of scientific knowledge making; the boundaries between experts, intermediaries, and the lay public ''''''; and the conceptualization of failure in the history of science and technology.”''

	My mama said, “I buy you books and all you read is the covers”. I NOW MUST PROVE THAT WRONG ONCE AGAIN. Back to the library, copy machine, pencil=paper, and ultimately source a reference from the book that I know will be irrefutable by you.--] (]) 13:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC) I apologize for the delay, off to the library now. I will post an acceptable reference to the sentences in the next day or so.--] (]) 19:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

	''"The cold fusion controversy did not end because Fleischman and Pons were wrong; it ended because CF researchers found themselves lacking social and material resources to argue that they were right. Yet cold fusion research has continued after the generally acknowledged end of the of the controversy in 1990. So resources must be coming from somewhere. How researchers are able to work, what kinds of research, and how the research is collectively organized are the questions that motivate the argument of the next two chapters. In the first instance I am less concerned with making how post-closure research happens than I am with making the case that it happens at all.''

	''As I argued in Chapter 4, cold fusion research as pathological science has become the normal explanation for post closure CF research. While this is an effective means of reproducing closure and reinforcing the epistemic boundaries of conventional physics. The '''prevalence of pathology talk''' has the effect of publicly '''eliding''' or '''suppressing''' a collective practice (cold fusion research) that is no less scientific than any other kind of mainstream science. Because cold fusion is perceived as pathological science, it will require a little extra work on my part to demonstrate that their is '''nothing particularly pathological''' going on in laboratories of cold fusion researchers."''pgs 124,125 Undead Science, by Bart Simon

	Undead Science is a term for mainstream science that is hidden from view due to sociological reasons. It replaces the term pathological science, in regards to cold fusion research, for reasons elucidated throughout the book.

	The sentences I first proposed here from the summary on the back of the book are most likely the words of the author as is standard for an academic book. Not words from an "anonymous editor at Rutgers University Press" as is surmised by Patsw\|talk. I also disagree that "a good job of summarizing the relevant content of Simon's book in this section" has been done for this article until we include a sentence or two that reflect the authors intent. Prior to the edit by Enric Naval I find this guideline: ''"This "In popular culture" section may contain minor or trivial references. Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, and remove trivial references."'' Including either my first proposed sentences or the following two sentences (my second choice) would clarify the authors' argument as to the relationship between cold fusion and popular culture.

	This following is my second choice for two sentences to add to Popular Culture - Cold Fusion. I have emailed the author Bart Simon for verification of the accuracy of the summary and his approval of referencing sentences (my first choice) from the summary as regards posting to Misplaced Pages.

	:The cold fusion controversy did not end because Fleischman and Pons were wrong, yet cold fusion research as pathological science has become the normal explanation for post closure CF research. The prevalence of pathology talk has the effect of publicly eliding or suppressing a collective practice (cold fusion research) that is no less scientific than any other kind of mainstream science.

	elide
	verb (used with object), e·lid·ed, e·lid·ing.
	1. to omit (a vowel, consonant, or syllable) in pronunciation.
	2. to suppress; omit; ignore; pass over.
	3. Law . to annul or quash.

	epistemic
	adjective
	1. of or pertaining to knowledge or the conditions for acquiring it. From pages 124 and 125 Undead Science.--] (]) 02:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

	== EarthTech Technologies source ==

	In reference to :

	:Replication attempts were made for several different experiments at a privately funded research organization. Although some experiments did produce the originally observed behaviour, conclusions were made that they were caused by mundane, non cold fusion effects.<ref name="ETI"></ref>



	As for the reputation of source itself, EarthTech was founded by ]. It is dedicated to studying fringe science. It does not have a reputation of being reliable and it doesn't have a history of being published in reliable sources, as ] recommends. Its founder has a reputation of badly-preformed research in fringe fields.

	As for the significance of the particular experiments, there are no independent sources saying that they are more significant that other experiments in the field since 1989, and they don't appear to have had a significant repercussion inside or outside the field. --] (]) 15:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

	:I think that if you are going to state these kinds of possibly personally damaging opinions as fact, you should provide more resources to support what you are saying. Puthoff has published in peer reviewed scientific journals, and I was not able to see any place that says he is not reputable - in fact the opposite in specific fields. The worse thing I saw was actually on his Misplaced Pages page that mentions he made some rather outlandish statements concerning his religious beliefs. A religion he disavowed decades ago (although, having religious beliefs does not mean one is scientifically unreputable). I'm not arguing if the source meets WP requirements - but the rhetoric is a bit over the top. ] (]) 02:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Prospero

	:I don't know enough about EarthTech nor Puthoff to feel comfortable defending my edit. The basic idea was that some private research center DID NOT find evidence for the cold fusion effect, even when they let the original claimants help them set up the experiment. To me it seems that the mentioning in one tiny sentence adds value to the WP-reader. --] (]) 08:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

	::I do know that I am easily obfuscated... because of this I tend to look for the cause of such. The Earth Tech staff link is non-operative. Is there some way I can look into this further? I would also like to see the following statements supportive facts referenced and dated, especially in regards to definative, quantitative, and comparative analysis. ''"Replication attempts were made for several different experiments at a privately funded research organization. Although some experiments did produce the originally observed behaviour, conclusions were made that they were caused by mundane, non cold fusion effects."'' Detailed support for this statement would ease my troubled mind and help erase the questioning look from my face. As it is presently presented it is not worth consideration. By the way... who posted this talk section?--] (]) 13:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

	:::several replies:

	:::I started this section.

	:::Puthoff tested ] for physics abilities, ] said that the testing protocols were awfully inadequate and ] said they were "sloppy and inadequate". When Puthoff published his paper in ''Nature'', the editors put a note criticizing the research methodology, and other comments..

	:::Puthoff then went to investigate ], as a part of the ]. According to the review made at the end of the project, the experiments were full of holes. Now Puthoff is investigating ZPE as a power source (see ]).

	:::Mentioning every experiment on every research center detracts value, specially if we can only cite their own assessment of their own experiments, and we have no secondary source saying if it's really notable/relevant and why. The value is added with a sourced summary of what all the experiments have amounted to over the years. Individual experiments should be mentioned when:
	:::a) sources say that they are notable of their own for whatever the reason
	:::b) you need to mention a certain experiment to tell the story
	:::c) you really need to mention examples of something and you pick the most notable ones from sources
	:::d) other reasons based on sources.
	:::--] (]) 15:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

	== LENR is in mainstream science ==

	This is worth noting. I recommend that all the editors here at Cold Fusion watch the webcast.

	CERN Colloquium - The European Organization for Nuclear Research
	Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)
	by Francesco Celani, Yogendra Srivastava

	Thursday, March 22, 2012 from 16:30 to 17:30 (Europe/Zurich)
	at CERN ( Council Chamber )
	Description
	An overview will be given on the main progress made –since March 1989- through experimental/theoretical studies on thermal/nuclear anomalies observed in forced interactions of Hydrogen isotopes (H, D), in non-equilibrium conditions, with pure or alloyed materials (mainly Palladium, Nickel).

	Most of the experiments used electrolytic environments at moderate temperatures (20-50°C). More recently, gas environments have been used at higher temperatures (between 200-400°C and even temperatures between 500-900°C have been employed).

	Specific nanostructures have begun to play a crucial role both in basic studies as well as in, recently claimed, technological/industrial applications.

	A plethora of theoretical models have been proposed to explain several experimental anomalies in LENR. A brief description of a weak interaction model shall be presented that claims to explain almost ALL of the anomalous effects found so far.
	Webcast Please note that this event will be available live via the Webcast Service.
	Organised by Ignatios Antoniadis/PH-TH & Daniele Benedetti/PH-UCM...........................Tea and coffee will be served at 16h00

	Also at CERN is Experimental and phenomenological comparison between Piezonuclear reactions and Condensed Matter Nuclear Science phenomenology / Cardone, F ; Mignani, R ; Petrucci, A --] (]) 02:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

	: It should be irrelevant for editors if certain research at CERN or NASA would be branded by some as "mainstream" or "fringe"; what matters is that research at such institutes is certainly notable and factual. ] (]) 07:39, 12 February 2012
	::CERN - Does reviews as peers do review... extreme cutting edge (not established) and established physics... physics at its' best... one of the extremely mainstream physics organizations.--] (]) 15:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
	::: That is nice; however, apparently you missed my point. In other words: Misplaced Pages demands ] and rejects ] (I'm sure it was proposed once but now I can't even find that proposal back). ] (]) 18:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

	:Students can give a colloquium, it does not mean it has the blessing of CERN. Might be fun to watch the webcast, though - maybe the speaker will be chopped to mincemeat. /] (]) 22:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
	::Straw man, nobody is claiming that CERN is blessing anything. The fact that CERN has decided to host this colloquium can be seen as mainstream science "warming up" to the topic.
	::Did you know that the University of Missouri just received a 5.5 million USD grant to research "cold fusion" properly and according to scientific method ? Do you know what ], MU’s vice chancellor for research has to says about scientists that are slow in grasping what is happening ? "Some scientists still scoff; others even get emotional about it, Duncan said. To them, he says: “Get over it.” " --] (]) 14:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
	::::Thousand of experiments creating hundreds of LENR environments to initiate anamolous reactions have been performed in dozens and dozens of well respected laboratories following strict adherance to scientific method over the past two decades; replication attempts, improvements in the sophistication of instrumentation , and intense scientific review is rampant throughought. There are very few acceptions to this. What went wrong in the beginning is that the press, intermediaries (the hot fusion folks), and public opinion became involved... sparking debates similarly found in the early years of attempted flight.--] (]) 19:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
	This was posted by me as an an example of LENR emerging as mainstream science; others are found throughout this field. Within this Cold Fusion article references to pathological or quackery perhaps belong in a historical footnotes section?

	LENR is: Quackery. Pathological science, Phariah science, Fringe science, or part of Mainstream science?

	Aviation is: Quackery. Pathological science, Phariah science, Fringe science, or part of Mainstream science?

	Those who tried to fly were certainly considered Quacks for ages and part of raging popular debates at the time. Now well respected with thier own peer reviewed journals, conferences, and colloquiums. Early arguments for or against flight are hardly ever mentioned anymore.--] (]) 19:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

	:I think I already pointed you to ]. It is still considered pathological science. --] (]) 19:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
	{{ec}}
	:Time to read ] and ]? If at some time it turns out that sources for cold fusion come to be as routinely accepting as sources for manned flight, of course the Misplaced Pages article would reflect that. But to contend that is the present state of science would be grotesquely disingenuous. Indeed we still have authors complaining that they can only write about CF at peril to their academic credibility. ] <small>]</small> 19:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
	To contend that research done in the early days of conquering flight was quackery or pathological is opinion and to state that LENR is considered pathological science is opinion as well. Thanks for the clarification here. Should we list the CERN Colloquium under the "pathological science uncovered and exposed"... section of "continued cold fusion quackery?" I guess it would be best to wait a bit and hear what comes of it first, maybe the speaker will be chopped to mincemeat.--] (]) 20:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

	I agree with the excellent observation made here that sources of LENR qualifications may be reflected as that in Misplaced Pages when "it turns out that sources for cold fusion come to be as routinely accepting as sources for manned flight". Is this CERN piece source worthy now or better to wait till after it is held? When the time comes, should this CERN bit be listed under the "conference" section, the "ongoing research" section, or a new "mainstream science" section? As it may be notable, I will be watching the web broadcast to observe the progression of this field of science.--] (]) 00:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
	:I was hoping] <small>]</small>)would make a suggestion we could follow on this one. The article could be best improved with some help and guidance on how to proceed from here. SORRY if this is posted out of sequence. Is It? Let me know.--] (]) 13:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
	::The best practice is to select sources based on their quality rather than their content. The model of ] is a useful one that should be more widely applied in areas where the science is both contentious and difficult for laypeople to understand. Accept that an encyclopedia will always be a bit dated (this isn't twitter) and use that as a quality advantage. If/when someone actually does succeed in getting substantial amounts of more-than-chemical energy from a simple fusion device in a well documented, reproducible way there is a ] in it. It would likely meet some initial doubt give the history, but it's not something that could be ignored: it would fundamentally change energy economics. We'd see the demonstration repeated live on CNN. Leading journals such as '']'' or '']'' would have single-topic issues, and most importantly there would be ''independent secondary sources written by previously neutral or opposed authors''. Those are the hallmarks of what is mainstream science. We should, so far as possible, ignore primary papers that have not received serious secondary examination as ]. ] <small>]</small> 16:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

	As a heads up I will mention here that one section in this article, '3.2 Setup of experiments' seems out of date to me; lacking information regarding the state of the art of experiments in this field, i.e. gas pressure loading, nano-particles, and higher temperature environments. The CERN Colloquium on LENR summarizes experimental environments to include, ''"gas environments have been used at higher temperatures (between 200-400°C and even temperatures between 500-900°C have been employed). Specific nanostructures have begun to play a crucial role..."''. I only find talk of the original experimental environment which seems to me to be 20 years behind the times. Perhaps revision edits could be suggested addressing this. I hope you all will consider how to improve the '3.2 Setup of experiments' section when making future edits.--] (]) 12:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

	== Crystal reminder ==

	Please re-read ]. Misplaced Pages has all the time in the world. If and when LENR breakthroughs happen, we are empowered to change Misplaced Pages accordingly. If and when this happens, expect a flood of Wikipedians with a lot of experience as well as interested and more expert outsiders. Until then, please stop trying to force one-off sources into the article. For decades the cold fusion community has been claiming that the next big thing was just around the corner. So far that hasn't panned out, but no one knows the future, so I withhold judgment as to whether it will happen. Until then, we shouldn't be trying to force Misplaced Pages into coverage of these stories which may or may not amount to anything. See ]. Think years down the road. Will this one obscure website, blog, small newspaper story, you tube video, etc. be remembered as the make-or-break cold fusion source? Probably not. Let the researchers convince the scientific community in the appropriate venues and when there is actual evidence that the community accepts the reality of cold fusion by means of this or that mechanism we will modify the article. Until then, we need to make sure that we are not carried away by the passions of those who are convinced that this one idea is going to save the world. ] (]) 21:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
	:Thanks.. WP-CBALL does not quite address my interest; yet I have a lot to learn from studying... WP-CBALL and WP:RECENTISM. See my recent edit workings and chime in with a suggestion, commentary, or direct observation. The team improving this article is not quite an editorial 'team'.... yet. Individuals visiting a... battleground.... for pertinent info do not ask me yet or again or never. Knowledge is always unfolding (opinion)--] (]) 14:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC) ooops I meant to include this; which is so pertinent from WP-CBALL: ''"While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Misplaced Pages to venture such projections."'' ... (either negative or positive) --] (]) 14:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

	== Arbitration Enforcement ==

	I have filed an arbitration enforcement notice related to editors who edit this article. Please see . ] (]) 12:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

	:I like where you say:

	:"I should mention that I have no interest in Cold Fusion and the Energy Catalyzer beyond ensuring the wikipedia articles do not expound fringe theories."

			== Interesting read and neutrality ==
	:Could you now remove yourself from this article talk page?

			While I personally don't believe cold fusion would work, I like that this article tries to be neutral on the subject instead of just being predatory like most other controversial articles. Its still not perfect but reading this article made me very angry at the mainstream scientific establishment for their behavior. I'm happy the article didn't accuse the field of being pseudoscience. I want more articles that try to be neutral like this one instead of editors vandalizing articles on here with their own political biases as a coping mechanism for their own personal life issues. Seriously, the fact that the rest of this site isn't as good as this article is proof that most of the top contributors to this site should've been permabanned years ago. And I have the right to say this as someone who's not an editor but has read thousands of articles on here.
	:] (]) 16:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

			One other point I should bring up: anything groundbreaking related to energy storage or generation would always be an issue of national security. Geopolitical instability, the formation of market bubbles and economic instability, and other side effects would make it logical to keep such technology secret and wait for intermediate technologies to soften the blow. For instance, you don't want the energy cells of science fiction to be dropped on society since every thief around would be sapping power from power lines using drones and wars would eventually start. So keep this in mind when you think about advanced technology. If something like cold fusion could work, it would be revealed after hot fusion became successful and more established. ] (]) 03:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
	== POV tag? ==

			:You fell for snake oil and you don't even realize it, shame! ] (]) 14:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
	It's just a physical process, how can you fight about it and how can it be un-neutral? O.o
			:]. --] (]) 06:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

			== Topic of Article ==
	I couldn't find the reason that somebody put a POV tag in the article through a quick reading of the talk page, if there's no reason for it or section explaining why you put the tag then the POV tag should be removed, shouldn't it?-- ] 19:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

			I feel like this article is less about cold fusion and more about the Pons and Fleischmann Experiment. I know that experiment is essentially the most widely reported event relating to cold fusion, but shouldn't it get its own article that could focus on government involvement and backlash and important history stuff. However, the cold fusion article should probably be more about the science behind how cold fusion could work, maybe bringing up other possible ways to do cold fusions. You could even combine it with the muon-catalyzed fusion which I just realize has its own separate article. You could discuss why all the theoretical methods don't work or report on the state of research, which is mostly just people repeating the fact that the Fleischmann Pons Experiment doesn't work.
	:You looked through this talk page, and you don't think there's a neutrality dispute? Maybe you should look again! I'm sure the tag should stay until one side of the dispute stops calling the other crackpots and cranks, and the other side stops getting reverted for inserting reliable sources about published government documents. ] (]) 20:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

			Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the term cold-fusion, which I thought was just any fusion at temperatures significantly lower than how it happens now. The fact that there is a separate article for muon-catalyzed fusion indicates I could be wrong, but that might just be because this article, again, mostly just describes the events, reports, and criticisms of the Fleischmann-Pons Experiment.
	::The was placed by ], a sock of banned user ] (]). He keeps coming back to wikipedia to POV-push his idiosyncratic views about stuff. The tag was placed in retaliation for getting his POV-pushing edits reverted. --] (]) 22:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

			I would attempt this stuff myself, but it would involve making a new article, combining others, and completely changing this one, that I don't have the Misplaced Pages skills for. I would also need to do a ton of research into other methods of cold-fusion, which are heavily diluted in the sea of Fleischmann-Pons reports. ] (]) 20:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::I removed the tag. The article is pretty darned neutral right now.
			:Is there any {{tq\|science behind how cold fusion could work}}? With ]? If you want speculation, Misplaced Pages is the wrong place. --] (]) 06:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::I talked to James Salsman on a Misplaced Pages meetup some years back and I think he is a good guy. However, I do not agree that his additions were appropriate to the article, and I do not think the POV tag that he placed was the result of a realistic assessment of the article. It clearly shows the mainstream scientific viewpoint. ] (]) 23:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

			::This article is about "the Pons & Fleischmann Experiment and related follow-up work". That's a self-contained topic, and it's notable. So it's perfectly appropriate for there to be a Misplaced Pages article about "the Pons & Fleischmann Experiment and related follow-up work". And that's what this article is.
	== I know what you are going to say ==

			::Separately, you can say that the title of this article (i.e., "cold fusion") does not reflect the content (i.e., "the Pons & Fleischmann Experiment and related follow-up work"). Now, my own opinion is that the current title is fine, but if you have other suggestions you can offer them! You can even propose to re-title this article literally "the Pons & Fleischmann Experiment and related follow-up work", although I would vote against that one, it's a bit clunky!
	Please stop speculating what other wikipedians will say or do. If we want to know what they say we can ask them. Even if it is 100% predictable it is still their decision.

			::Separately, you can say that there ought to be a Misplaced Pages article on "approaches to nuclear fusion power that don't involve heating something up very much", I guess including scientifically-valid ideas like ] and ], and also things that don't actually exist like "the Pons & Fleischmann Experiment and related follow-up work". My opinion is that the current setup—where we have separate dedicated articles for those three things, but no overarching one—is the right setup. I think they don't just don't have much to do with each other in any detail. Let people interested in muon-catalyzed fusion read an article about muon-catalyzed fusion, without having to wade through a ton of other stuff thrown in that has nothing to do with muon-catalyzed fusion. There's plenty to say about muon-catalyzed fusion by itself—it's not a short article. And they're all findable as is—the legitimate approaches all have links from ] already. So I don't think merging them makes sense, nor making a new overarching article. See what I mean? --] (]) 21:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
	How to put it... you will probably thank me later?

			== Rename article to LENR (Low-energy Nuclear Reactions) ==
	ha-ha

			This has become the accepted name in the field of research , with ICCF as its conference name. The present article is about the historic Ponds-fleischmann experiment which is now a tiny subset of modern investigations. So a new umbrella article is needed, which over time would be expanded by users to encompass a categorized list of sub areas] (]) 05:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	] (]) 06:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
			:The people who still believe in this can change the in-universe name to "Squirrel manticore foomp" for all we care. Cold fusion is the common name. --] (]) 10:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:31, 21 December 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cold fusion article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48Auto-archiving period: 6 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Cold fusion. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Cold fusion at the Reference desk.

Cold fusion is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2004.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 16, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
January 6, 2006	Featured article review	Demoted
June 3, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
June 7, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
July 19, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
December 26, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 28, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
November 23, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 23, 2012, March 23, 2014, March 23, 2017, March 23, 2019, and March 23, 2024.
Current status: Former featured article

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Mid‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Stephen Foley (3 February 2009). "So is Misplaced Pages cracking up?:It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Misplaced Pages is plagued by endless hoaxes, and lurches from one cash crisis to another. Will it become a footnote in the history of the web?". The Independent.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contents of the List of references to cold fusion in popular culture page were merged into Cold fusion. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Interesting read and neutrality

While I personally don't believe cold fusion would work, I like that this article tries to be neutral on the subject instead of just being predatory like most other controversial articles. Its still not perfect but reading this article made me very angry at the mainstream scientific establishment for their behavior. I'm happy the article didn't accuse the field of being pseudoscience. I want more articles that try to be neutral like this one instead of editors vandalizing articles on here with their own political biases as a coping mechanism for their own personal life issues. Seriously, the fact that the rest of this site isn't as good as this article is proof that most of the top contributors to this site should've been permabanned years ago. And I have the right to say this as someone who's not an editor but has read thousands of articles on here.

One other point I should bring up: anything groundbreaking related to energy storage or generation would always be an issue of national security. Geopolitical instability, the formation of market bubbles and economic instability, and other side effects would make it logical to keep such technology secret and wait for intermediate technologies to soften the blow. For instance, you don't want the energy cells of science fiction to be dropped on society since every thief around would be sapping power from power lines using drones and wars would eventually start. So keep this in mind when you think about advanced technology. If something like cold fusion could work, it would be revealed after hot fusion became successful and more established. 50.81.18.120 (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You fell for snake oil and you don't even realize it, shame! 2601:281:D881:7F10:8B4:48D0:3A87:9A95 (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Topic of Article

I feel like this article is less about cold fusion and more about the Pons and Fleischmann Experiment. I know that experiment is essentially the most widely reported event relating to cold fusion, but shouldn't it get its own article that could focus on government involvement and backlash and important history stuff. However, the cold fusion article should probably be more about the science behind how cold fusion could work, maybe bringing up other possible ways to do cold fusions. You could even combine it with the muon-catalyzed fusion which I just realize has its own separate article. You could discuss why all the theoretical methods don't work or report on the state of research, which is mostly just people repeating the fact that the Fleischmann Pons Experiment doesn't work.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the term cold-fusion, which I thought was just any fusion at temperatures significantly lower than how it happens now. The fact that there is a separate article for muon-catalyzed fusion indicates I could be wrong, but that might just be because this article, again, mostly just describes the events, reports, and criticisms of the Fleischmann-Pons Experiment.

I would attempt this stuff myself, but it would involve making a new article, combining others, and completely changing this one, that I don't have the Misplaced Pages skills for. I would also need to do a ton of research into other methods of cold-fusion, which are heavily diluted in the sea of Fleischmann-Pons reports. MrMasterGamer0 (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there any science behind how cold fusion could work? With reliable sources? If you want speculation, Misplaced Pages is the wrong place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is about "the Pons & Fleischmann Experiment and related follow-up work". That's a self-contained topic, and it's notable. So it's perfectly appropriate for there to be a Misplaced Pages article about "the Pons & Fleischmann Experiment and related follow-up work". And that's what this article is.

Separately, you can say that the title of this article (i.e., "cold fusion") does not reflect the content (i.e., "the Pons & Fleischmann Experiment and related follow-up work"). Now, my own opinion is that the current title is fine, but if you have other suggestions you can offer them! You can even propose to re-title this article literally "the Pons & Fleischmann Experiment and related follow-up work", although I would vote against that one, it's a bit clunky!

Separately, you can say that there ought to be a Misplaced Pages article on "approaches to nuclear fusion power that don't involve heating something up very much", I guess including scientifically-valid ideas like muon-catalyzed fusion and colliding beam fusion, and also things that don't actually exist like "the Pons & Fleischmann Experiment and related follow-up work". My opinion is that the current setup—where we have separate dedicated articles for those three things, but no overarching one—is the right setup. I think they don't just don't have much to do with each other in any detail. Let people interested in muon-catalyzed fusion read an article about muon-catalyzed fusion, without having to wade through a ton of other stuff thrown in that has nothing to do with muon-catalyzed fusion. There's plenty to say about muon-catalyzed fusion by itself—it's not a short article. And they're all findable as is—the legitimate approaches all have links from fusion power already. So I don't think merging them makes sense, nor making a new overarching article. See what I mean? --Steve (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Rename article to LENR (Low-energy Nuclear Reactions)

This has become the accepted name in the field of research , with ICCF as its conference name. The present article is about the historic Ponds-fleischmann experiment which is now a tiny subset of modern investigations. So a new umbrella article is needed, which over time would be expanded by users to encompass a categorized list of sub areasLawrence18uk (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The people who still believe in this can change the in-universe name to "Squirrel manticore foomp" for all we care. Cold fusion is the common name. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: