![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 |
Search Wikipedia for LENR, and you get redirected to this page, which is all about the discredited Fleischmann–Pons experiment.
There is a mention of LENR, it suggests that it's an alternative name used by a small group of researchers who are continuing to attempt the Fleischmann–Pons experiment.
I was trying to find out more information about LENR research which has gone well beyond this, essentially not doing traditional fusion of deutrium to Helium but from Nickel to Copper, or Carbon to Nickel. This page seems irrelevant to the subject.
Here is a paper illustrating a typical contemporary LENR experiment:
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
And here is an interesting article from NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864/
I do hope you gentlemen can stop squabbling about a 25 year old experiment and get on with explaining what is happening with contemporary LENR research.
Either that or stop redirecting LENR here because it's very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Irwin ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I didn't. I started reading this (rather long) talk page at the top, but after reading about 10 minutes of FP bashing and naval gazing I gave up. In effect at the bottom the discussion does get more to the point.
But the real issue is that the caboodle (including talk page) really could be condensed more than a zip file full of spaces:
1) What is Cold Fusion (Fusion reactions achieved without artificial sun like conditions)
1) Summary of PF, problems with results and non repeatably; Link to a specific article about the experiment and the controversy etc (it is relevant to science history etc).
3) A brief paragraph for each of the hypothesized or attempted methods, citing experimental work in course, or linking to specific articles for more detailed experiments such as NIF's lasers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.75.112 ( talk) 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
There is an external link to [ [1]] but perhaps a better link might be:
http://lenr-canr.org/index/DownloadOnly/DownloadOnly.php
which is a php generated table which can be sorted by publication date and author name. Most of the pdf links on the iscmns.org site go to the lenr-canr.org site anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.201.101.145 ( talk) 13:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Since there is a dearth of references in this article on the subject since 2011 (and only a very few from 2000, relative to the number of research articles available on the topic), it might be worthwhile adding a reference and link ( http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/spl.php?splid=2) to the 25 Feb 2015 issue of Current Science that has a special section on low energy nuclear reactions. It contains 30 peer-reviewed papers (both theoretical and experimental)on the subject of cold fusion and they are all available online for free. Most of the papers are of a review nature (with references to prior work) and new research results were not encouraged by the guest editors, so there is only a very few cases of previously unreported research in the papers presented. Since I am one of the guest editors, I am not allowed to contribute this information to the Wiki article. I hope that someone else will do so. Aqm2241 ( talk) 17:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
An interesting link [2]. The first paper mentioned in the list addresses theoretical perspective on CF/LENR/CMNS.-- 5.15.185.29 ( talk) 23:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The authors of the review are from a mathematics department which is very suitable because the theory in CF as well as in conventional nuclear physics is/must be undoubtedly mathematical belonging to mathematical physics.-- 5.15.185.29 ( talk) 23:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
'Cold Fusion' was a fusion of hydrogen atoms to produce helium using a lattice to reduce the required energy. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions use an as yet unproven technique (Muon like catalyzed fusion perhaps, or other theories like Widom Larson or quantum tunneling have been proposed) to slip a proton-electron hydrogen atom into a much larger metal atom like Nickel or tin or iron, then there is radio-active decay that releases energy, an electron released or the proton and electron in the nucleus collapse onto a neutron. A redirect from LENR to cold fusion is like redirecting from Quantum Mechanics to an article on gambling. The net effect is that about five years of peer reviewed material and break through science are being entirely ignored and not reported on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.249.4 ( talk) 17:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00686 143.161.248.25 ( talk) 09:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cold fusion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Andrea Rossi, an Italian professor and inventor of the E-Cat LENR system, received US Patent (#9,115,913 B1) on Aug. 25, 2015 for his "Fluid Heater" component. The patent is held by Leonardo Corp. of Miami Beach, FL. This patent reveals some details about the fuel mixture used, although there are other components of the E-Cat LENR system which still have patents pending. While some prototypes of the system have been developed and sold, mass marketing has yet to take place. [1] [2] Robert92107 ( talk) 13:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
This is more of a mess than I thought. There is a separate article Energy Catalyzer for the E-Cat. More work will be needed to properly interrelate the two. Robert92107 ( talk) 17:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
References
As this is being done at low temperatures and is published / university press release, it'd be good to add a reference, preferably at the top: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/5/8/10.1063/1.4928572 http://www.gu.se/omuniversitetet/aktuellt/nyheter/detalj//smaskalig-karnfusion-kan-bli-ny-energikalla.cid1323710 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.153.120 ( talk) 23:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, at the very least, it should be a jumping off link to people who are looking into cold fusion. I think it's reasonable to make that distinction, but we should point people to the idea that advances are being made in fusion without using high temperatures. The theory is that wikipedia is a useful resource for people looking into a subject. "Cold Fusion" can easily be defined as something that refers to fusion not being done at high temperatures. Frankly, I find it exceedingly ludicrous that there is a desperate need to say "cold fusion" is impossible when it's been shown many times that it IS possible (for example, there was an article published in Nature about pyroelectric fusion which is all done on a tabletop /info/en/?search=Pyroelectric_fusion). This obsession with saying cold fusion must always be defined as experiments done in the 80's is totally sophomoric. It's all ego all the time with people on both sides of this discussion. Rational people care about energy production done in a way that doesn't require massive investment in equipment and absurdly high temperatures. That is the promise of cold fusion. No one except a bunch of very neurotic individuals care whether muons or lasers or crystals or hydrogen infused metals are used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.153.120 ( talk • contribs) 23:43, 24 September 2015
It's not "COLD LOTS OF ENERGY". It's "COLD FUSION". There are many useful applications other than 'lots of energy' that can come from fusion. Also, it's very very easy to show that pyroelectric fusion can create neutrons which can be used to pummel radioactive uranium to do a safe reactor if "lots of energy" is what you want to see. And in fact, the us government provides FUNDING for anyone researching how to provide lots of energy via muon catalyzed fusion which should go to show how people treat this form of cold fusion (which btw, historically, was the first reference to cold fusion .. not pons/fleischman) serious this is. You are doing a huge disservice to researchers into cold fusion everywhere. Your making out the whole area to be a pathological science when it MOST DEFINITELY is not. Very serious researchers are publishing very serious articles into creating fusion at low temperature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.153.120 ( talk) 17:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Here is the lede as is and it is false: Cold fusion is a hypothetical type of nuclear reaction that would occur at, or near, room temperature. This is compared with the "hot" fusion which takes place naturally within stars, under immense pressure and at temperatures of millions of degrees. This part is not true: There is currently no accepted theoretical model which would allow cold fusion to occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.153.120 ( talk) 17:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Here is a reference to cold fusion for pyroelectric: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0606/p25s01-stss.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.153.120 ( talk) 17:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Do we have consensus that we can strike the comment "There is currently no accepted theoretical model which would allow cold fusion to occur." / alter the lede or should we engage a dispute resolution / request for comment process? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
50.92.153.120 (
talk)
10:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Noren and TenOfAllTrades, please explain how saying that control experiments have since been done and necessary results obtained is overstating a source which has written "Now many groups, including Franco's, had done the necessary control experiments, and obtained the necessary confirming results (no heat in the controls)." ? Banedon ( talk) 01:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a fundamental difference between "Notes" and "References with quotations or other additional text", and the article's distinction between them puzzles me, and perhaps others too. Why can't they be merged? Nyttend ( talk) 16:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The section on patents includes this text:
A U.S. patent might still be granted when given a different name to disassociate it from cold fusion. David Voss said in 1999 that some patents that closely resemble cold fusion processes, and that use materials used in cold fusion, have been granted by the USPTO.
Wouldn't the Rossi patent recently granted by the USPTO fit in neatly here (the term 'water heater' being the 'different name' in this context)? -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 10:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The part in bold was removed with summary "deleted part hardly applies given Rossi's patent success (the ref. cited is 13 years out of date also)":
A U.S. patent might still be granted when given a different name to disassociate it from cold fusion,[179] though this strategy has had little success in the US: the same claims that need to be patented can identify it with cold fusion, and most of these patents cannot avoid mentioning Fleischmann and Pons' research due to legal constraints, thus alerting the patent reviewer that it is a cold-fusion-related patent.[179]
This is still valid, right?? Rossi got his US patent after removing all references to cold fusion research. Compare to his Italian patent, which had references to several papers on cold fusion and was rejected on the US.
I don't think Rossi's latest patent is a good counterexample for this sentence. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 14:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
-- Brian Josephson ( talk) 15:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)"The fact that something can be referenced doesn't necessarily mean that it makes sense".
I'm not going to get involved in another pointless long-winded debate on this, so here's all I'll say: They are using a modified F&P cell and report calibration consistencies on the order of 5-10%. This is exactly what my 2002 paper is about, and I found that a +/- 2.5% difference in the calibration constant produced clear apparent excess heat signals. This means that their work (done in 1995-96) must be re-evaluated in light of my discovery. There is no information in their paper to allow that, thus they would have to go back to their lab notebooks to locate the necessary information. Until that time, it is perfectly allowable to disregard the excess heat claim, which is all their paper is about in relation to CF. Their work on determining loading levels from microsecond pulses seems interesting, but I am not an expert on that.
I studied Arata's papers when they came out and I have commented extensively before on Arata's claims. I don't believe them. He's making the same assumptions and thus the same mistakes in his work, I also commented extensively elsewhere on his variable ionization energy mass spectrometry, which is unusual and not well researched, and thus I don't accept his results from that either. Kirk shanahan ( talk) 14:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Your professional IP advisor prepares a patent application which includes:
Let me be quite clear here ...
(1) The purpose of the Cold Fusion (LENR) article is NOT to disprove it, but to report on what it is, the research on it, and any relevant business activity involving it (including patents). I am explicitly eschewing ANYTHING which violates these principles.
(2) I put in the subsection on current state of research simply because the article as it is now is outdated and ignores the current state of research. The special publication issue noted is from Feb. 2015, so it is fairly current, and covers LENR from a wide range of perspectives, even including an article about a college course in it at MIT.
(3) The criticism that it is "Some sort of promotional stuff" is wrong. It is clear the person who removed this material knows nothing about scientific literature in India (since this is from a leading scientific journal in India), and did not read any of the articles reported, including the introduction to the special issue. I at least read SOME of them, and found them interesting and valuable. I believe that other people interested in this topic would also find it useful.
For the above reasons I reinserted the material. I think this subsection is a bit long, but it shows the extent of research, its international scope, and many of the leading researchers in the field. Because of these reasons I felt it best to include the contents in their entirety. Doing any less would harm the value of the Wiki article, since (as I noted above) it is currently deficient. Robert92107 ( talk) 09:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Re the characterisation [of fringe which] is no longer justifiable at this time from above, of course it holds, but how can this statement be w'verified beyond a reasonable doubt? I've noticed some people proposing the mentioning of some historian(s) of science to be cited to justify the non-fringe status. Is that a workable solution?-- 79.119.216.218 ( talk) 15:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
2015 (UTC)
How does everyone want to edit this article. I was looking at the article history and saw that the article has been pretty much stagnant. It has less than 500 edits since 2012. This is always a bad sign for an article. I was editing the article sentence by sentence so that individual sentence changes could be reverted if there were disagreements. Based on my looking over this article it needs a lot of work and a lot more noninvolved editors working on it. The individual sentence approach I think is the fastest way to improve this article. I unfortunately do not have that much time and cannot be on the talk page all the time. - Guest2625 ( talk) 08:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll do inline editing and when there are objections place the edit to be discussed here.
JzG's version:
My minor corrections:
References
Explanation:
Thanks for the comments. On style reasons I agree that the second sentence should be removed. It essentially repeats what the first sentence says. However, no evidence has been provided that Edmund Storm is not a reliable wikipedia source. To assume that Edmund Storm is an unreliable source would require that the reader place his faith in the opinion of the editor Guy who is a devout follower of the strange skeptic–true believer discourse. Interestingly enough Edmund Storm's definition of cold fusion is the one that appears at the top in a google web page search for cold fusion. Not sure what to make of that, but I guess neutral wikipedia cannot always be the number one in search results. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 02:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The statement about the google search was an aside. My main concern is that Guy did not present any evidence that Edmund Storms was an unreliable source. Perhaps he is an unreliable source and wears a tinfoil hat, and in this case for the good of other editors, the evidence should be provided. Concerning your question: according to the removed source, Storms believes in the anomalous production of excessive heat by cold fusion, so scenario a. is closer to his view. However, both scenarios have been poorly worded and use nonneutral language. A neutral assessment of cold fusion research can be given by the following paragraph:
-- Guest2625 ( talk) 07:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
References
William's version:
My version:
I prefer the second version of the headers, because they are briefer and more aesthetic. The second version of the headers convey the exact same information as the first; however, the second version also has brevity and internal symmetry. Little details are important in making a great article, for example, n-dashes instead of hyphens, correct placement of images, simple wording, non-repetitiveness etc. In this case, the second version of the headers have a nice internal symmetry—the "Early research" header reflects off the "Fleischmein–Pons experiment" and gives the symmetric "Subsequent research". The other version of the headers, unfortunately, appears to the reader as clumsy and wordy. And wordiness is something that this article definitely needs to cut down on. That is why the removal of a repetitive sentence in the above discussion was good. More is not better. If something is being repeated or overly wordy, it should be pared down. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 00:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
In the "Calorimetry errors" section, the dangling sentence at the end of the section should be removed. The sentence:
breaks the logical flow of the section. The section begins with the sentence:
Then in the next two paragraphs different possible erroneous calorimetry assumptions are discussed which makes logical sense. Then we come across a random dangling sentence/paragraph that mentions that if there are no nuclear products then this indicates that there most be a measuring error. However, we already have a section called "Lack of expected reaction products" which addresses the lack of nuclear products being a criticism of the current experimental results. The "Calorimtery errors" section should address specific calorimetry errors. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 19:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR16/Session/E11.9 Fritz194 ( talk) 09:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Cold fusion. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Cold fusion. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Anybody think that the archive bot is going a bit crazy? surely we should have some of the older discussions here on this page, even if no one has contributed in a while? Can we reset it so that it behaves based on page size rather than date? I'm not experienced with this so if someone else could help that would be great. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
How is it that Andrea Rossi is not mentioned anywhere in this article (except the see also section), despite the fact that nearly every article or story on cold fusion or LENR these days mentions him? Here are just a few examples of new stories that prominently feature Rossi:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a18673/cold-fusion-essay/
https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-scientists-dismiss-the-possibility-of-cold-fusion?...
https://aeon.co/opinions/is-the-cold-fusion-egg-about-to-hatch
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a20454/in-cold-fusion-20-whos-scamming-whom/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a20874/us-house-cold-fusion/
Aren't we doing a disservice to our readers by avoiding mention of Rossi when he is pretty much the face of cold fusion at the moment? I suggest a new section on 'commercialisation' that outlines the prominent people/organisations attempting to commercialise LENR, as well as of course the criticism levelled at them. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
restored section deleted by LeadSongDog
Abstract Scientists at the US Navy SPAWAR Systems Center-Pacific (SSC-Pacific), and its predecessors, have had extraordinary success in publishing LENR papers in peer-reviewed journals. This success hasn’t come easily and is due to several factors. One key reason for this success was the courage of the SSC-Pacific upper management in allowing scientists to conduct research and publish results in a controversial field. The few journal editors, who had the fortitude to consider our work, also contributed to this success. This contrasts with the majority of their peers who, taking the path of least resistance, ignored our work out of hand and returned manuscripts with, ‘the subject matter is not in the purview of the journal’. The reviewers also played a role in the successful publication of LENR-related papers. A multitude of reviewers, many outside the LENR field, had to put aside their biases and look objectively at our data. In turn, the reviewers’ relentless concerns forced us to tenaciously address their issues. Ultimately, the SSC - Pacific team published 21 refereed papers in seven journals and a book chapter, spanning 19 years beginning in 1989. This paper is a brief synopsis of those publications.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242327687_SPAWAR_Systems_Center-Pacific_PdD_CoDeposition_Research_Overview_of_Refereed_LENR_Publications 84.107.129.188 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Restored justification of their action Five Ws .. Who, What, Where/When WHY. Alanf777 ( talk) 22:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The subject of this article is clearly "cold fusion" as the general public understands the term. The first problem is that there are room-temperature nuclear (fission) reactions, often naturally occurring. For example, in uranium mines, or when rocks and minerals get hit by cosmic rays. This may seem trivial, but this sort of thing has been studied by scientists trying to determined which rare elements occur naturally, if only in small amounts. For example, neptunium and plutonium are now classified as among the 94 naturally occurring chemical elements.
Next, there are a variety of (endothermic) cold fusion devices. The ones that involve muon-catalyzed fusion are a subset. The key concept here is "endothermic." These devices consume more energy than they produce. They were never intended to produce energy. Instead, they are used to make a variety of subatomic particles, such as neutrons, or to transform a few atoms of lighter elements into heavier elements for research purposes.
If you search Google Scholar for "cold fusion" (with quotation marks) and filter for papers published up to 1988, you will see that this was, and is, legitimate science.
This article is about "exothermic" cold fusion, i.e., trying to get more energy out than you put in.
Besides muon-catalyzed fusion, we have at least two other articles that deal with legitimate (endothermic) cold fusion: Fusor and Nuclear fission.
This is similar to the problem with Biophoton and Schumann resonances, two other legitimate scientific subjects that have come to be identified with pseudoscience or fringe science. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 03:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Organiclies ( talk) 17:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The United States Navy's “SPAWAR Program” Reproduced P&F's Results Within a Year of the 1989 announcement. U.S. Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, Pacific Group (SPAWAR), duplicated Pons and Fleischmann's work by 1990, and by 2009, had published 23 peer reviewed papers saying that the nuclear effect is real, that transmutation of base metals occurs, that tritium is produced, that excess heat is produced, and that low momentum neutrons are produced. Below is the video link that presents Navy's work results, it's a 1 hour and 3 minute presentation by the researchers who actually did the work. Early efforts at repeatability failed due to insufficient gas loading of the metal, which Navy overcame by co-depositing the gas and metal at the same time, onto the cathode. Currently NASA Langley has taken over the research, and are currently running grid testing of different materials to check for the same type nuclear reactions using more abundant metals and gas (Ni & H2). (NASA Langley Chief Scientists Zawodny and Bushnell).
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Video (2009)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2LV8rM7vn0
NASA Technology Gateway video on chief scientist Zawodny's work at NASA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBjA5LLraX0 American Chemical Society Press Briefing on Cold Fusion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHc3jOTJYZA
The secret was and is to achieve a very high gas loading ratio into the metal lattice. (over 90%) Edits that claim an inabiliity to replicate P&F's results are simply incorrect. Hundreds of high level laboratories around the world now agree that it's a series of nuclear reactions. They are currently trying to correleate the energy released and transmutation results to match a theory that will let them profoundly exploit the reaction for our energy needs,,,that is to say,, ALL of our energy needs.
The labs which failed to duplicate Flieschmann's work, did not wait the hours or days or weeks required to load the D2 gas into the Palladium metals crystalline lattice as was required for the P&F method to work. Some left the cathode exposed to air instead of immersing it fully into the heavy water. Using the F&P method, the reaction took a long time to start, because electrically loading the gas into the metal is very slow,, Using Navy's co-deposition of gas and metal onto the cathode, results are immediate. Navy in their video above, claim very high repeatability and rapid start of their cold fusion cell.
U.S. Navy has two patents on the process that are not secret,, one is for the transmutation of nuclear waste into non radioactive metals. NASA has a patent on reliably starting and stopping the nuclear reaction. NASA has also started a seed project and funded an aerospace design company to build a spaceplane around this nuclear process, to take rockets to the edge of space for launching, where they would only need 20 to 40 thousand pounds of fuel to reach low earth orbit (LEO). NASA (Zawodny and Bushnell) have reported on this technology at various NASA and governemnt science labs.
Link to NASA Patent by Chief Scientist Joseph Zawodny: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110255645%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110255645&RS=DN/20110255645
The Navy has a patent on this which they have up for licensing, to reliably turn radioactive weste into stable, non-radioactive metals.
It could be time for Wikipedia to stop allowing edits to the Martin Fleischmann Wiki , Stanley Pons Wikei, and Cold Fusion Wiki, that imply that this most important work is invalid, and implying that the "cold fusion" reaction is/was unrepeatable. The sicence is in on this.
It is in fact highly repeatable and the reaction now starts rapidly.
Would the Journal of Visualized Experiments articles be a reliable source to be cited in the situation that some CF articles be available in it?-- 79.119.208.208 ( talk) 17:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Possibly useful source:
Note: This is a "blog" but it may qualify as a "new-blog."
This blog makes mention of several publications over the past few decades, including a2006 pubication by Lewis Larsen and Allan Widom in European Physical Journal C - Particles and Fields.
It also makes mention of publications in the 1910s and 1920s in "top scientific journals of the day, including Physical Review, Science and Nature" regarding unexplained changes in elements, including early evidence of what we now call tritium. Some of this early research was done by Nobel prize winners.
This might convince WIKI editors that it is time to repackage this whole page into a format where this page can evolve properly. For historic reasons many will want to maintain section where the Dark phase of Cold Fusion history is recorded. But it is now time to reflect the Wikipedia page with the kind of material in this Canadian Atomic Energy Company paper.
BSmith821 ( talk) 05:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The following statement in the introduction (or whatever the paragraphs before the content list are called) is somewhat problematic. “Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.” [5]
When checking the sources for this comment (they are all listed on the cold fusion page under [5]), it turns out that 3 of them (I couldn’t access a copy of the fourth: Close, 1992) are all significantly negative/critical, accusing the two scientists of errors (or hypothesizing ways in which errors could be produced), or claiming that Pons and Fleischmann had made errors that lead to their results, but without actual evidence that such errors were produced in the original experiments. Someone else would need to check the fourth source to see if this is the same, but there really needs to be an edit along the lines of "other scientists claimed that Fleischmann and Pons had not detected nuclear reaction byproducts". At the very least, at the moment it’s inaccurate and misleading. ( 203.122.247.182 ( talk) 10:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Cold fusion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
A slow motion edit war is taking place right now we should discuss, I guess. The passage reads:
In May 2016, the [[United States House Committee on Armed Services]], in its report on the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act,
states that it is "aware of recent positive developments in developing low-energy nuclear reactions", anddirected the [[United States Secretary of Defense|Secretary of Defense]] to "provide a briefing on the military utility of recent U.S. industrial base LENR advancements to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 22, 2016."
The question is whether the first included quote is worthy of inclusion. My argument is that this quote is largely acknowledging spin of the cold fusion researchers and, as such, its inclusion unduly WP:WEIGHTs the true-believer position. Without having the balance of the relevant (non-pathological) scientific community investigating this, to include this statement is akin to endorsing a position of Congress -- an institution that is not scientifically inclined -- as a meaningful statement about scientific progress.
jps ( talk) 12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
It wouldn't have had to be a hearing. It could, in principle, have been a text briefing, right? And it could have been delivered well before September 22. *shrug* jps ( talk) 21:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I seem to recall from that era that tunneling had been a central argument of F&P's theory, in overcoming the potential barrier issue. It is not discussed even once in this article. It wasn't some gratuitous add-on, rather: no tunneling, no cold fusion. What happened to that? Example:
JohndanR ( talk) 18:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Cold fusion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello there, my name is Zach and I'm an engineer working at YouTube. I wanted to update this wiki entry with some new developments that are being reported by some of our content creators on our platform.
Update:
Here is the text change that I'm proposing:
"Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[5]"
->
"Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications."
Removes: "the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts."
Rationale: The claim is removed because it is not supported by the article cited:
Citation 5 points to the New York Times article: http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html
Fact: Pons-Flechman had reported neutron generation many times over the course of their five-year research product. Their assertion that they produced neutrons is incontrovertible. Additionally, this was supported by 3rd party scientists, which the article citation mentions:
"Some of the new experiments also sought to reproduce the less contentious findings on cold fusion reported independently by Dr. Steven E. Jones and his colleagues at Brigham Young University in Utah. Dr. Jones, who used a device similar to the one in the Pons-Fleischmann experiment, did not claim that any useful energy was produced. But he did report that slightly more neutrons were detected while the cell was operating than could be expected from normal sources. The result suggests at least the possibility of fusion"
"Dr. Dickens of Oak Ridge noted that Dr. Jones had used relatively crude neutron-detecting equipment, and had measured only a very small excess of neutrons over what could be expected from natural sources without any fusion."
So clearly, from these two sources mentioned in the original article, certain scientists did infact detected Neutron sources, which was the byproduct of nuclear transmutation.
QED
Thanks, Zach.vorhies ( talk) 06:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Zach.vorhies ( talk) 06:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Explicit use of et al. in: |last2=
(
help)
"Dr. Dickens of Oak Ridge noted that Dr. Jones had used relatively crude neutron-detecting equipment, and had measured only a very small excess of neutrons over what could be expected from natural sources without any fusion."
It says it right here. The article uses linguistic tricks to try and say the opposite. Let me rephrase this into an alternative:
"Using a crude neutron-detecting equipment, we measured a very small excess of neutrons, above background levels."
I don't know why the New York Times would use the language they used. The sentence clearly states that neutrons from fusion are being detected. Here's 60 minutes saying the same thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTvaX3vRtRA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach.vorhies ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I still see the factually incorrect statement:
"the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts."
This is a fake news. This is directly contradicted by the source article. Neutrons were generated and detected. That's was their whole point of the announcement! And it was confirmed, according to the source listed!!! The statement "the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts" on Wikipedia is false. Having the statement remain hurts the integrity of Wikipedia.
I'm starting to suspect that you are playing gate keeper here. I live and work in Tech in San Francisco and I have access to the Wikimedia people. Do I need to dig into your history to figure out if you have a financial incentive to keep this lie in the article? What other lies do you play gate keeper to?
Zach.vorhies ( talk) 23:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm starting a new section because the above has gotten completely unreadable.
Organiclies started the above section with links to two patent applications and a non-peer-reviewed paper. They have since added links to a number of other papers and patents, mostly from the same group at the U.S. Navy's
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR). What claims Organiclies intends us to understand he is making based on these in the above discussion debate beast complete mess are so opaque as to make
vantablack look transparent. Having read through these cites, however, there is definitely justification to say that this group is continuing to try to develop Pons's and Fleischmann's initial work and therefore the Navy is pursuing cold fusion. Interestingly enough, the first sentence of the "United States" subsection of the "Current research" section currently says: United States Navy researchers at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego have been studying cold fusion since 1989.
At the very most, these cites substantiate the claim that the research continues. Adding them to the cites following the quoted sentence would be acceptable, if redundant, but there I see no new claim that can be made based on these.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib)
16:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
This is clearly not moving forward and there is no consensus for adding anything based on the reported sources.
| ||
---|---|---|
Pons & Fleischmann used deuterated metal in their experiements. Here NASA and some of the Navy SPAWAR and JWK International, and Pinesci team have continued the science and have initiated a nuclear reaction using beam energies that were not previously considered by most outside physicists, to be high enough to cause a nuclear reaction. Control, (un-deuterated), metals were used as experimental controls, exposed to the beams, and didn't react. Deuterated metals created isotopes when exposed to beam and NASA were able to create a beta emitter that has lasted "for over 12 months". This seems an important milestone in understanding and legitimizing Pons & Fleischmann's work. P & F's work led SPAWAR to start working on it, and then the work went to NASA facilities at NASA Glenn,due to radiation concerns. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170002584.pdf low energy photon exposure of deuterated metals https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170002544.pdf x ray exposure of deuterated metals International patent application on the process, over 100 page application. Patent application should be available on the appropriate U.S. government patent office site. http://e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2017.09.14-Published-Application-1663.0002PCT3.pdf
Eggishorn, kwhen you energize deuterated metals, that's the very definition of cold fusion. The US Patent Office will not grant any patent using the term "cold fusion" so the patents use other descriptions these days, including NASA's patents, notice I used the pluaral of the word "patents". NASA hasn't used deuterated metals in their thermoelectric generators , they use Uranium or worse. This work gives them a generator they can launch into space and there is zero risk of causing widespread radiation contamination over large areas. Same goes for an unwanted re-entry and burn up in the atmosphere. After a firestorm of patent conflicts grinds them to a halt the patent office will have to eventually reverse their policy towards Pons and Fleischmann/Cold Fusion, and credit someone with the invention, that will probably occur when the process is powering their homes, cars, trains, aircraft, space vehicles, and industry. The work sites Tritium production, which is due to D-D fusion and nothing else. In the papers I linked to, they are using deuterated metals, it doesn't matter how the metals are deuterated or energized, what matters is the process and the nuclear nuclear processes are the same. Hundreds of papers make it clear that once the metal is deuterized past 90%, of saturation you can apply nearly any type of energy to cause nuclear activity to begin. So the method of initiation has choices. NASA likely chose x-rays and photons to create beta emitters in order to directly funnel beta into an electrical system, as in a beta battery and to make medical isotopes. The papers and patent clearly discuss that this process might provide for every energy need, and create medical isotopes, and heat and/or beta batteries for deep space probes that travel too far away from the sun for solar panels to work, and remediate nuclear waste into non radioactive metals. JWK International are part of the work as is Pam Mosier-Boss, both were on the U.S. Navy SPAWAR efforts and the 26 or so papers they published since 1990 saying the process is nuclear, makes isotopes, makes other elements (transmutation), makes gamma, makes beta, and makes excess heat. The SPAWAR researches knew Pons and Fleischmann in 1989, and called them on the phone to ask how to duplicate their results, which is something the other scientists who failed, didn't do, or didn't listen to what they were told. SPAWAR didn't want to wait weeks or months for the Deuterium to work it's way into the atomic lattice)space between atoms) of the metal (electrochemical gas loading) so they employed a process called co-deposition,, in which the Deuterium and Palladium are laid down on the cathode by electrochemical action of Palladium and Deuterium salts in deuterated water, in a mix that equivocates to a high level of gas loading. It's simeply a different method of deuterating the metal. There would be no Navy SPAWAR work without Pons and Fleischmann and their would be no NASA work on this without Navy SPAWAR. This is a direct line of work with the same researchers involved who derived their knowledge from Pons and Fleischmann. It's an unbroken chain, the only difference is how they achieved loading and the method they use to start the reaction. If NASA failed to cite P&F, it's likely due to patent office's firm policy of denying anything that uses the term "cold fusion" as a claim. Citing P & F in a patent application is still a bad idead due to patent office policy. Nobody doubts that one of the reactions is D-D fusion. Tunneling and superconductivity are often mentioned as the means by which the D-D are able to fuse. This reaction in select Deuterium gas loaded metal can be started by electricity, pulsed electricity, plasma, physical shock, particle bombardment, heat, weak laser, e-rays and just about anything that applies energy. So the method of initiation isn't critical to the reaction nor is the method of achieving >90 gas loading. The method (codeposition)used by SPAWAR, of getting the gas into the spaces between metal atoms makes the reaction start in a reasonably short time with very high repeatability. The research team in this paper have members who started their deuterated metal experiments with P&F 's instructions on how to do the work. They improved on it, but the results are the same, excess heat, low energy neutrons, gamma, beta, isotopes and the transmutation of one element into several other elements as published by many other labs. There is D-D fusion, but it's not accomplished with the massively high pressures and temperatures that hot fusion requires. The current work on this with NASA and SPAWAR scientists, and JWK Intenational and Pinesci Consulting, could easily yield a working theory that allows for engineering of energy production devices. The classified result of this line of work that has continued since 1990 is likely a large set of volumes. Science and history will tie this work directly back to Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. There's a clear line of communication per the head of SPAWAR in his research groups presentation at U of Missouri and other places, which is on YouTube and which I've posted on the Pons Wiki. This is the Navy Spawar chief's video with his researchers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2LV8rM7vn0 See video in beginning and at 59:15 for credit they gave to Pons and Fleischmann. P & F helped SPAWAR on a battery electrochemistry issue. Pam Mosier-Boss of the Navy Spawar effort is also in this work as is Larry Forsley of JWK Intl. The head of he Navy SPAWAR effort gives credit to Pons and Fleischmann every time he speaks, as do most all researdhers who have advanced the field of study. Organiclies ( talk) 23:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiclies ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
In the photon bean paper, they saw triple tracks that were identical to those seen in D-T fusion reactors using the same neutron detectors. In the paper on X-ray beam, they saw observed energy consistent with Tritium. (page 22 {"beta activity consistent with Tritium" last paragraph) There was only Deuterium and the target solids/metals present, so the reaction is likely to be either D-D or D-T (Tritium),, and then I'd wonder where the Tritium came from if not from D-D fusion. The nuclear reactions as easily seen by the isotopes created here and elsewhere , are numerous. Pons & Fleischmann were pushed into calling it fusion, they knew it was nuclear but wanted to study it more before they announced and identified it. They were pushed into prematurely announcing by the university. However they did make nuclear reactions happen in a test tube at room pressure using deuterated metal, and close enough to room temperature ,, when compared to the astronomical pressures and temperatures required for hot fusion. The majority of the text on the main page is negative and inaccurately paints a picture of failure and dishonesty, and a career topped off by shame, none of which is deserved based on the facts as now known. Instead the page should give main focus to pointing out that P & F opened up a completely new branch of study in nuclear physics, which Navy SPAWAR took up via Pons and Fleischmann,and carried to NASA,, which now has these patents and papers. NASA's papers might require a year or years more to get peer reviewed, but they were done with controls and by qualified scientists who (in the papers) invite communication from the scientific community. Neither NASA nor SPAWAR would dared to release such studies without very high confidence in the accuracy. They have to worry about public relations, lest they lose funding. The patents NASA and Navy have on this took a lot of time from both legal staff and scientists and clerical staff, so there should be little doubt. There's now no doubt that highly deuterated metals can be fairly gently hit with just about any form of energy to initiate nuclear reactions. Pons and Fleischmann's work has been improved upon, but they are the foundation of this whole new branch of physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiclies ( talk • contribs) 02:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The important thing is not what I'm saying, the important thing is what the NASA-Navy work is saying. NASA research is highly trusted in the U.S. and in the world, so a link to the paper should be on the Article page. The NASA work is precisely relevant because they're using deuterated metals with a modest input of energy to start nuclear reactions with millions of times more energy density than any known chemical process. Currently the Article page expresses mostly just doubt. NASA has just verified that they've created nuclear reactions , utilizing no radioactive fuel, a modest input energy, and yet showed these multiple nuclear reactions. How much funding does Wikipedia receive from the fossil fuel industry, the electric utility industry? The question is relevant because this is an obvious disruptive technology. Is there a political motive at Wikipedia to minimize this field of research? Does Wikipedia have an editor whose also a physicist so that he might review this NASA research? organiclies 71.66.237.229 ( talk) 04:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC) A link to the research papers and patent should be provided on the main page, you can express copious doubt about the links after you place them, but your readers deserve a chance to see this research. 71.66.237.229 ( talk) 04:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies
We don't serve readers or truth nor science by using rules to block very important NASA work which is obviously utilizing the essence of cold fusion. Does Wiki have and editor who has training in physics that can be called upon please? 71.66.237.229 ( talk) 21:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies
How much education in physics do you have Huon? We're in a "catch 22" situation here where editors won't consider peer reviewed research poster in scientific journals that are not to their liking,, and the more read journals won't print very high quality peer reviewed positive studies showing that deuterated metals undergo nuclear reactions when hit with modest initiation energy (cold fusion). What are the qualifications for a journal to meet Wikipedia's standard of belief? At the same time editors refuse to permit research by one of the most highly vetted research organization on the planet, namely NASA. Editors certainly understand that this is exacerbated by the effect of decades of scorn from the molded scientific community that refused to consider tunneling effects and low momentum neutrons, even though these effects are uncontested in physics and require no new physics to be invented. Should such a catch 22 policy be allowed to censor work by one of the most respected research houses on the planet? It's a circular game of denial as in a catch 22 scenario. It's indisputable that the studies that claimed to disprove the nuclear reaction(s) known as cold fusion, have in fact themselves been entirely discredited as false, or in the case of M.I.T, intentionally rigged, as proven in civil court. The entire notion that there's doubt about cold fusion has been proven scientifically to be wrong by hundreds of papers published in many scientific journals that the editors don't like. Is it the policy at Wikipedia that only a Journal Nature study will be acceptable. If that's the case there's a lot of editing to do across Wikipedia. I'd like to call for a reconsideration of editorial policy on cold fusion edit submissions, and, that editors understand that the notion that cold fusion is a false and pariah science is something this page helps to proliferate, contributing to the public's misunderstanding of this important field of research. The fact that highly read journals won't (yet) publish the work and many physicists are absolutely fearful they'll damage their careers by engaging in cold fusion research, makes clear the importance of Navy and NASA's scientific claims. Both agencies make their claims in an environment of disbelief and scorn from the hot fusion and fission community, and the fossil fuel industry. Extraordinary evidence: it's been published 100's of times in journals editors don't like, published work by many government labs and universities around the world, by hundreds of career scientists, who risk their careers to publish their work. They show nuclear effects when deuterated metals are hit with a modest initiation energy that would otherwise have no effect unless the metal is highly deuterated. That's cold fusion. 71.66.237.229 ( talk) 04:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies Does Wikipedia have an editor who is an actual physicist with an advanced degree in physics? 71.66.237.229 ( talk) 04:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies
Whose on first? no, Whose on second! Circular illogic I'm afraid. You well understand why the articles and patents don't use the term "cold fusion",, if you don't I'd suggest a physicist with some experience in electrochemistry and a knowledge of tunneling and some years under his belt,, but not too jaded to read the papers and patent (s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.237.229 ( talk) 10:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Organiclies ( talk) 10:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Organiclies
It seems apparent that editors to date are either unable or unwilling to examine the clear evidence presented in the papers, and to recognize that certain terms can't be used in papers that scientists hope will be published. Just as wiki has put the cold fusion page into a sewer category that editors can't remove it from. I'll say it again Eggishorn, when you energize deuterated metals, or even some we consider non-metals, you get a nuclear reaction and that is by definition cold fusion and it's what Pons and Fleischmann did, Navy took it up, it was moved to NASA , and that's what they did. NASA deuterated metals and hit them with initiation energy and caused nuclear reactions. Navy has published 26 times, 23 times by 2009 or so. So you don't believe the Navy's numerous publications? You won't listen to videos by the head of the Navy research lab, and by the scientists who actually did the work for Navy, where they credit Pons and Flieschmann very openly and warmly even. You perhaps don't believe that the work was then focused at NASA Glenn, which produced the two recent papers. You could watch NASA's two or three NASA Technology Gateway videos, or the slideshow they gave at NASA Glenn. You could listen to a video of head of Navy labs saying their work was shut down due to radiation concerns. The Navy video shows Navy measuring elemental transmutations, free neutrons, excess heat. If editors are prohibited from removing cold fusion from this undeserved category of crackpots, they should say so, and suggest who can, what wikipedia process can. Shouldn't editors do the work and understand the issues, instead of just relying on rules that in this case don't serve the truth. How about you tell me exactly what you would need to hear, as you respond, please be very specific. Please also tell me why the Navy and NASA work isn't cold fusion as performed by Pons and Feischmann. NASA's work clearly stands on the shoulders of Pons and Fleischmann, even though they can't cite his work, and you know they can't if they want to be published in a journal that's very widely read. This science very likely has world changing benefits for the entire world, editors should read and understand the papers and if they can't, pass it to a serious physicist editor, because clearly you have not done so. Oh, and by the way, my understanding of the topic is pretty good. You haven't even attempted to grapple with the meat of the papers. Instead editors are standing on a policy that says this science isn't real, that it's crackpot science and so continuing to give a completely false impression to readers of cold fusion related wiki's. Editors are engaged in absolute evasion of the facts as presented in the papers, and are unwilling or unable to see that the works are fundamentally the same producing different nuclear effects as different deuterated metals are selected. It's deuterated metal that's energized, that's Pons and fleischamnn. The the U.S. Navy and NASA are saying it's real and it's nuclear, but Wikipedia won't listen to a video to hear Navy give credit to Pons and Fleischmann. Editors need to suck down a beer and learn about this topic and remove cold fusion from the category you've placed it in. You've categorized it into a category that no editor has the ability to retrieve it from, and so the public blindly believes that cold fusion was a fraud. Categorized as it is, wiki is locked into deceiving the public. Wiki shouldn't act like a church burning scientists alive. Wiki should read and understand the science presented, and the videos by Navy and NASA if they are to ever hope to understand how to referee this page. Wiki should remove this topic from the witchcraft category that it is in, and I doubt that editors can do that. Come on wiki management, please take a look at this and take this topic out of the category of witchcraft and fairies. I'm ashamed for you guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.237.229 ( talk) 00:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC) 71.66.237.229 ( talk) 00:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies I'd happily spend a day with management on Skype to show you whats going on with "cold fusion", a name coined by the press. Make it someone with an open mind and has the ability to remove this topic from the nutjob category you have it in. 71.66.237.229 ( talk) 00:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies
Dear editors, Pons and Fleischmann didn't use the term cold fusion, that term was coined by the press. You're point is not a point at all. So, since the term does not belong to P & F, you have to consider what there technique was. Their technique was to apply initiation energy to deuterated metal. This isn't that hard guys. 71.66.237.229 ( talk) 08:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies
Here is a quick find where a NASA researcher and an associate credit Pons and Fleischmann , page 2, ""LENR's history can be traced back to Pons and Fleischmann... "" Link: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150000549.pdf Very few people knew about this latest NASA work, it hasn't hit the newspapers at all. The NASA papers I posted clearly show they are using deuterium loaded metal and applying an activation energy, clearly doing LENR. Activation energy can be nearly anything, dc current, magnetism, heat, pressure, laser, sonoluminescence and as NASA used this time, X-rays and photons. What's important is that the metal (and some non-metals) be deuterated to a high degree, then energy of most any sort, applied. The papers in question clearly state that that is exactly what they did at NASA. Here is one of the Navy researchers speaking about why MIT and Caltech failed to reproduce Pons and Fleischmann's work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y789MlhCCgo (6 minutes) He is talking about the moment that Navy became interested in ""cold fusion"" and how they got he/they got it to work. NASA jumped on about the same time but only Navy published twenty some papers over the next 25 years. Now NASA has been going public with videos and slideshows on this for years, and because they don't want the negative connotation with cold fusion, they don't use the term "cold fusion" . In the paper they give it the very protracted name,,, nuclear effects in deuterated metalss when exposed to... NASA chief scientist Joseph Zawodny went out of his way to learn how to do LENR (cold fusion) from the Widom and Larsen team, which Zawodny speaks of in one of his videos. The current theoretical guy NASA is using is Vladamir Pines, NASA valued his work so much they invoked national security to make sure he was the sole contractor for developing the theory. He's important. By definition, when you highly deuterate metal and hit it with initiation energy , you are doing cold fusion/LENR proper, if you use the right metals, do it right... Some researchers also call it, "anomalous effects in deuterated metals",, think it was Navy. All the researchers have made sure they don't use the term "cold fusion in their paper submissions and/or patents. Keep in mind that the type and amount of energy and transmutations produced, will vary with the materials used for a lattice and the catalysts used, and he activation energy. So the nuclear reactions will vary with the reactants used. Any arguments about whether one of the many theories is correct, are premature, and several of them might have gotten some of it right. Nobody knows for sure yet except NASA and Vladimir Pines. Seems they know enough to make a beta battery and make useful isotopes per the works in question. Regardless of the theories proposed by anyone in history, nobody has come forward yet to say this or that one is a good fit, Widom Larsen was the closest. If P & F said that magic fireflies caused the reaction and NASA says its from magic bunnies, it doesn't detract from the fact that they are deuterating metal and applying energy to start a nuclear reaction. Organiclies ( talk) 14:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies
Hello jps, Yes, the reason I posted that link was to fulfill a request by Red Rock Canyon for a link that showed NASA crediting Pons and Fleischmann for LENR. So I posted it. That paper was a report on the feasibility of using LENR for flight, but it contained what Red Rock Canyon asked for. Their task was not to do the research, but the feasibility study of LENR for flight based on its energy density, etc. Obviously a NASA document on a NASA website. So I fulfilled the request. The new papers describe using deuterated metals with an outside energy applied to initiate the nuclear reactions. That's what P & F did. NASA took this up about the same time Navy did per the 6 minute video in the post above, which is by Melvin Miles of Naval Labs. There's also twenty something peer reviewed and published studies by Navy saying it's nuclear, it gives heat, it transmutes elemental metals, gives neutrons, and gamma There's also a 1 hr and 3 minute video on YouTube by the Navy team that did the actual laboratory work, the first speaker is head of the Naval Lab, he credits Pons and Fleischmann too and describes the errors made by those who discredited P & F. Organiclies ( talk) 17:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies Here is yet another link describing a "debt owed" to Pons and Fleischmann by Navy SPAWAR in a presentation at a seminar at U of Missouri: research.missouri.edu/vcr_seminar/U%20of%20Mo/spawar.pp select slide number 65 on the left. All the slides are informative. Though Navy found a better codeposition method, they acknowledge that they owe a debt to Pons and Fleischmann. Though Navy changed the method of codeposition, they were building off Pons and Fleischmann's work and they repeatedly, publicly, have acknowledged that fact. . Organiclies ( talk) 18:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC) organiclies
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.
Right about the time hell freezes over NASA will issue a press release saying this new work is related to Pons and Fleischmann and cold fusion, or when their patent is approved, or when they no longer have to worry about getting funding cuts by flat-earthers whose election campaigns are funded (legalized bribery) by large fossil fuel companies. I see Wikipedia has no links to the Navy's 20 some peer reviewed published studies saying cold fusion is real, it's nuclear it makes heat, isotopes, transmutations, neutrons, etc.. No links to the videos by Navy researchers who do the work. Why is that? Wikipedia appears to be acting as a censor for reasons hidden. Anyone reading the Navy papers or viewing their videos, with a smidgen of consciousness would see that it's really important. But censored here. Red Rock Canyon: anytime you deuterate metal , apply some energy, and get a nuclear reaction, you're doing cold fusion as the world understands it. Melvin Miles of Naval Research Labs replicated Pons and Fleischmann's work many times, but you won't watch a 6 minute video to see that, or to hear him credit Pons and Fleischmann. I'm sure he has papers on that, would they be allowed? The new Navy work, is clearly deuterating metal and applying activation energy. But wiki rules want peer review, fine, but you could mention the work and provide a link and state that it requires peer review, and express plenty of doubt, like you did on Fleischmanns page and on this Article page. At the very least Wikipedia should link to 20 something peer reviewed Navy studies. Is that allowed? Red Rock, anyone who can read would see that the the NASA work is a direct result of Pons and Fleischmann's work. It's simply this::::: deuterating metal, applying energy, getting nuclear activity. So Wiki's objections are irrational. There are certainly sections on the Article page where this work can be mentioned, and then deep boisterous, even outrageous doubt can be expressed and Wikipedia can get another check from Murray or Koch. The links to Navy's work certainly do also belong on the main page. For the NASA work peer review, we can wait for hell to freeze over or for the press to educate the public, in which case Wikipedia won't be telling them anything they don't already know. Maybe that's the intent. Wiki needs to understand that the press coined the phrase "cold fusion" and that it refers to P&F deuterating metal, applying energy, and so starting nuclear activity. They further need to look at Melvin Miles work for Naval Research Labs, where he exactly duplicated Pons and Fleichmann's work , found excess heat and measured Helium 4,a clear indication of nuclear activity. Miles knew Fleischmann!! So P&F's work has been duplicated, not just by Miles, but by many researchers in many labs around the world, 100's of times. Wiki's censorship of Pons and Flieschmann replications and "cold fusion", should be noted by readers and they should explore the topic with sources other than Wikipedia, unless or until this illogical bias is fixed. I'm naive enough to have believed Wikipedia could objectively look at this, but failure to include the peer reviewed and published duplications by the Navy and many others, is sad, so sad, so very sad. (Thanks to our glorious leader) Please justify why you can't even post a link to the new NASA work and elaborate that it might not soon receive peer reviewed, because Wiki has helped keep a monumentally important field of physics in tin foil hat Flatearth-ville, with gooney bird clusters. Then disclose your reasons for doing so, the real reasons, not the editorial policy rules that you apply only when you want to silence something. Who will get funding for the peer review in a study that took years to plan and complete, for what most scientists view as a ""pariah science"", a view Wikipedia has helped to convey? If they do the work they'll not get tenure, not advance in career, not get hired elsewhere. Come on you guys, post the links and then express those enormous doubts that suffocate any research that angers your funders or fossily political views, or are due to unwillingness to read the papers or watch the testimonial videos by scientists.
LOL,, no sinister forces, just people apparently unwilling to read papers and explore the science, and what is very very obvious, that "cold fusion" has been replicated hundreds of times with success, with peer review, and that anytime you deuterate metal and hit it with energy and get heat or physical effects that are by their nature and/or amplitude, nuclear, its because Pons and Fleischmann provided the foundation of it. Go Away Sea Lions,, lol, it goes both ways Guy. Scientists are hobbled from crediting the discoverers of a new branch of physics. That should make a good Wiki page. Guy should post a cartoon where neither the seal nor human can see or hear,, nor speak apparently. So we can all just wait for the newspapers, that will happen before anyone does a peer review. So Red Rock,, will you post donations from fossil fuel interests for the last 5 years or so? Why isn't 20 some years of Navy work present on this site,, the peer reviewed published studies they did? Clearly I've shown that Navy credits Pons and Fleischmann. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiclies ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The Navy work is peer reviewed and published, so why aren't the links to the work here anymore? Navy, 2 different labs, are incredibly reputable secondary sources. Do we agree on that? Navy at China Lake Miles verifying Pons and Fleischmann using the same lab setup and I posted the video of Melvin Miles crediting Pons and Fleischmann for that work, and the NASA document crediting Pons and Fleischmann for LENR, one of the many names for what was originally called cold fusion. NASA is also a highly respected work that de facto verifies cold fusion. And it's clear why they haven't credited P&F or used the term cold fusion. The false very nasty stigma that was stuck on cold fusion and it's researchers, makes for none of the work appearing in the Journal Nature, or Scientific American, new scientists are warned away from cold fusion related work like it's a bowl of poison. Government labs are hungry for better cheaper energy sources, but if Wikipedia isn't going to see the clear line of attribution between P&F-Navy-NASA,, well it's completely illogical, as is their failure to understand that if you deuterate metal, give it initiation energy, and it goes nuclear, then you are standing on Pons and Fleischmann's shoulders. So no new peer reviewers step forward, as you know. NASA's works are both secondary and tertiary sources confirming and expanding on P&F's "cold fusion", so was Navy SPAWAR and NRL/Miles. Taken together they've done hundreds of experimental runs on "cold fusion". Wiki editors any work that anyone does anywhere that involves putting a little energy into deuterated metal and getting a nuclear effect is confirmation of Pons and Fleischmann and "cold fusion". The different methods of getting deuterium into the metal lattice is not as important as the fact that their claiming a nuclear reaction,, many exclamation points. Same for the type of energy used for initiation, any number of energy types will start the reaction. It's the same beast, it's what the press called "cold fusion" in 1989, it is clear from the NASA document I posted that says NASA credits P&F, not good enough. So basically editors are telling me that I have to have more peer review of the peer reviewers and peer review of the peer reviewed published work confirming work by Navy and NASA, even though the objections I'm seeing here are consistently ignoring the links I've posted here. NASA has just released 2 history making studies and a 120 page international patent application,,,,,which are in fact confirmations of cold fusion and are in reality tertiary confirmation. Look at the train of recognition, its documented. Allow the Navy and NASA links, and just dump in a bunch of doubt and ruinous remarks and caution people that it's all wrong, The Navy's 20 some published peer reviewed papers over 20 some years verifying Pons and Fleischmann are all wrong, that Melvin Miles is wrong, SPAWAR's secondary confirmation and attribution to P&F are wrong, that you can't believe a NASA document giving credit to Pons and Fleischmann for LENR, and deny that NASA's work is the tertiary source that you won't recognize because they changed the method of putting deuterium in the metal lattice, and change which kind of energy they used to initiate the nuclear reactions. Add the links and then caution people that all of that work by highly reputable government and military labs is just all highly speculative and false. You could site it as government waste fraud and abuse. But it does deserve to be seen because I've met your objections. Consider the Navy and NASA works as secondary and tertiary confirming sources, to the tune of working their behinds off since 1989 and performing hundreds of verifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiclies ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Organiclies ( talk) 15:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Insertcleverphrasehere , I'll read the links you provided. Here is a preliminary link to a page at Researchgate lising some Navy papers, 21 papers at the time.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242327687_SPAWAR_Systems_Center-Pacific_PdD_CoDeposition_Research_Overview_of_Refereed_LENR_Publications. Will hunt down papers by Melvin Miles. Organiclies ( talk) 21:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Insertcleverphraseshere , NASA understandably wants to be cautious, and disclaimed away their part , ironic since it's their work, and since they are paying their theoretical guy a lot of money and granted him exclusive contract. But yes, "cold fusion" has a bad rap and when the public first heard of it, NASA critics started barking. NASA's budget lives or dies with public opinion. I expect the call for technical comment will bring peer review, but it's seems to have been a long running experiment,, so peer review will take a good while and not everywhere has a LINAC in their lab. The call for technical comments is a good way to get peer review however. Organiclies ( talk) 21:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Insertcleverphraseshere : I've started posting links Organiclies ( talk) 12:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Three Navy researchers and Forsley from JWK international, citing Pons and Fleischmann on line 1 of the abstract, and detecting high energy neutrons in PdD system https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00114-008-0449-x Organiclies ( talk) 22:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC) http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol8.pdf Naval Labs Melvin Miles publishes mistakes made by MIT and CalTech when they tried to duplicate Pons and Fleischman's "cold fusion". Organiclies ( talk) 17:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC) http://research.missouri.edu/vcr_seminar/U%20of%20Mo/spawar.pp Powerpoint by Navy Scietists et al description of 20 year history of LENR , aka cold fusion. From U of Missouri _____ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00114-007-0221-7 Navy SPAWAR credit P&F, energentic particles Abstract Almost two decades ago, Fleischmann and Pons reported excess enthalpy generation in the negatively polarized Pd/D-D2O system, which they attributed to nuclear reactions. In the months and years that followed, other manifestations of nuclear activities in this system were observed, viz. tritium and helium production and transmutation of elements. In this report, we present additional evidence, namely, the emission of highly energetic charged particles emitted from the Pd/D electrode when this system is placed in either an external electrostatic or magnetostatic field. The density of tracks registered by a CR-39 detector was found to be of a magnitude that provides undisputable evidence of their nuclear origin. The experiments were reproducible. A model based upon electron capture is proposed to explain the reaction products observed in the Pd/D-D2O system. ____ https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-european-physical-journal-applied-physics/article/use-of-cr-39-in-pdd-co-deposition-experiments/962F25029909ADC4CDD888EFF770CAF6 Verificaiton Pd/D tracks observed in CR-39 nuclear track detectors are of nuclear origin. _____ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0375960195009159 "Evidence of X-rays in cathodic polarization of the PdD system(s) is presented" "evidence for tritium production" _____ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040603103004015 Abstract Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrode, prepared by the co-deposition technique, serving as a cathode in the Dewar-type electrochemical cell/calorimeter is examined. It is shown that: (i) excess enthalpy is generated during and after the completion of the co-deposition process; (ii) rates of excess enthalpy generation are somewhat higher than when Pd wires or other forms of Pd electrodes are used; (iii) positive feedback and heat-after-death effects were observed; and (iv) rates of excess power generation were found to increase with an increase in both cell current and cell temperature, the latter being higher. _______ Organiclies ( talk) 13:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossthermaland.pdf Volume 1 by U.S. Navy SPAWAR researchers , written at the tenth year of their research on cold fusion Volume 2 was written by Dr. Fleischmann and it was a guide to achieving accurate calorimetry with his cell. Most phsicists didn't know how to properly do calorimetry in an irreversible actively energy producing cell. Volume two was introduced by Dr. Pam Mosier-Boss of the Navy SPAWAR effort, Ill link to if it's good to have here. Organiclies ( talk) 15:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC) _______ _________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiclies ( talk • contribs) 14:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Unpredictable how he will look at it, but the DOD/Navy/NASA/DTRA, all military recognize that the rest of the world is working on it and it's better to have it first than last. For example aircraft payload could increase by 30-40%, due to not having to carry around the extra framing, fuel tanks, and fuel, for the flight. No fuel convoys to get ambushed on the roads, etc. It's limitless , the first working reactor will change everything. Once they have theory, they can engineer, and these 2 papers seem to have planned the reactants, for specific outcomes. Government has had the Navy's continuous work on this for 25 years and failed to fund it except for some money under Obama, and very fortunately the funding and work that Navy SPAWAR provided for 20 years or so. Organiclies ( talk) 16:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Well,, if there's something humans haven't fought over, I can't think of what it is. Trade wars, spice wars, wars over land, tillable land, water, and the ever popular,, whose the boss, and religion when used for power politics and greed. Humans don't have a good history of being rational. Maybe AI running master running on Quantums will control all with worn implants keeping us in line, but then there's the population problem, Quantums would have to get pretty personal to fix that. Organiclies ( talk) 18:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC) There were two attempts at JPL to replicate one of the reports linked above. The second attempt results: "As before, we find no evidence of activation." "Our null result raises doubts about the claim of nuclear activation by x-rays reported in [NASA/TM-2015-218491]. [5] Neither paper has anything to do with the subject of this article, but at least one of them failed replication. -- mikeu talk 20:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Mikeu It is related as it's energizing deuterated material to attempt to start nuclear activity. It's an attempt to progress from the original work of P&F and lots of 100's of works that followed. From NASA paper,, """ Portions of SL10A, SL16, and SL17A samples were also scanned using a beta scintillator and found to have beta activity in the tritium energy band, continuing without noticeable decay for over 12 months. Beta scintillation investigation of as-received materials (before x-ray exposure) showed no beta activity in the tritium energy band, indicating the beta emitters were not in the starting materials.""". And, the HPE and Ti controls showed no alpha or beta activity. So,,JPL's Radon theory doesn't hold against the NASA controls. Also the NASA re-exposures seem to rule this out. JPL state that the control undeuterated polyethylene was more prone to static charge, yet HPEcontrols in the NASA work were not emitting, not the HPE and not the Ti, so the x ray exposed controls would have been emitting too,if there were Radon decay products sticking to the samples? Radon contamination theory. Who knows? JPL might have gotten the second (and inappropriate)batch of "fuel" that the NASA paper mentions. Contracting with JPL was then, part of the plan. Expecting then, that NASA has also arranged for someone to replicate the photon(gamma) activation paper soon. Organiclies ( talk) 23:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Organiclies ( talk) 23:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Organiclies ( talk) 02:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Navy patent on "cold fusion, lenr, lanr, etc" for the remediation of nuclear waste: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/8419919 Organiclies ( talk) 02:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Final Navy SPAWAR D.T.R.A. (Defense Threat Reduction Agency) report withheld by DOD for years, 2016 Boss and Forsley worked 4 years to get it released: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf Organiclies ( talk) 13:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Guy Macon : Navy said it's absolutely a nuclear reaction and they determined that using several very widely accepted tools::: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf 71.66.237.229 ( talk) 00:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Eggishorn and jps Good development by Eggishorn! jps , I'd like to say that nearly 30 years of work by multiple DOD and NASA labs is not the same nor in any way similar to tenured university work, which, by the way, has produced discoveries of worth. The last link I posted which is to the final DTRA report, gives extensive references to the scientists involved in the work by Navy and others. The author(s) mention its possibly the most exhaustive work ever done. The work was moved to other government labs more equipped to do research with nuclear reactions, especially when they produce neutrons. The previous sentence is almost a quote from a Navy official. I could find the exact quote if it's helpful. NASA also started their research right after Pons and Fleischmann announced in 1989. Organiclies ( talk) 19:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC) 71.66.237.229 ( talk) 00:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Mikeu The JPL independent study didn't address the fact that the NASA Glenn controls did not emit alpha or beta, JPL's first effort shouldn't have even started as their X-Ray tube had no narrow focus and it had less intensity, and they altered the stainless steel sample cap thickness and on and on.. a sloppy attempt to pretend to duplicate. In attempt #2 , JPL suggests that NASA's positive particle readings were caused by Radon daughters adhering to the DPE by static charge, so JPL blasted their samples with an ion gun to eliminate the static charge,, oh dear. Do you think that could change the conditions of an experiment where charge might be beneficial, LOL how about any gas loading? Again, if Glenn's positive particle detections were from Radon, then why didn't the Glenn control DPE smaples (deuterated polyethylene) also show particle emissions!?. They didn't. Interesting that you don't want scientific research posted without peer review because it's branded pseudoscience. Think the Navy spends 27 years of research on nothing, then relocates the work to another government lab because of dangerous neutron generation, per Frank Gordon. JPL changed the experiment in several ways, it doesn't even seem like a sincere effort to replicate. JPL destroyed the fuel. Organiclies ( talk) 03:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC) The comment in the section below, which I'm apparently barred from posting to: Any doubts about the Navy SPAWAR's success can be judged from this paper, a report on their efforts through 2012:::: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf Organiclies ( talk) 12:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Here is a 1 hour and 3 minute video by U.S. Navy SPAWAR researchers claiming "very high repeatability" in starting the reaction, the detection of neutrons, and the transmutation of the Palladium into other elemental metals. All of which is only possible with a nuclear reaction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2LV8rM7vn0 Organiclies ( talk) 16:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC) |
The rational for Muon induced fusion of Deuterium is that the negatively charged Muon replaces one of a Deuterium molecules electrons, and the Muon being hundred times heavier than an electron, results in a molecule where the nucei are so close together that there is a finite possibility of nucleus-nucleus interaction ("tunneling"). The rational for Pons' reaction was that Hydrogen ions (naked protons)are intersticial to the Host (Palladium, Nickel, et al) and within the Hosts metallic orbitals, hence can approach closely. Apparently not close enough. Maybe metallic Deuterium?
Shjacks45 ( talk) 03:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
P&F expressed regret at calling it fusion, but NASA, Navy, and many other researchers claim there are both fission and fusion reactions present. What P&F were right about, was that the reaction was nuclear, because it produced very much more energy than is possible from any chemical reaction. Yes, perhaps metallic Deuterium and/or Hydrogen. Organiclies ( talk) 17:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
LeadSongDog Shjacks45 Who is supposed to do the edit you request? Organiclies ( talk) 17:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
But from my edits, in the green band (hidden) which obscures the posts, I clearly point to numerous U.S. Navy SPAWAR published studies which show there is nuclear activity. Surely the Navy satisfies the reliable published source requirements. Then there's he DTRA report published by Pam Mosier-Boss et al. Surely these are relible sources , the U.S. Navy after all. organiclies Organiclies ( talk) 22:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Your criticism of my posts fails completely to those who read the information linked to in my posts. I'll take note that Wiki editors refuse to believe 25 years of research by the U.S. Navy SPAWAR labs and a report released by the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency. organiclies 71.66.237.229 ( talk) 02:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Very well, so we can agree that Wikipedia doesn't believe 27 years of cold fusion science put forth by U.S. Navy Researchers, NASA researchers, 100 University researchers, at least, the U.S. DTRA, etc. The research has verified the existence of nuclear effects in these experiments, yet on the main page you call LENR a "Very well, so we can agree that Wikipedia doesn't believe 27 years of cold fusion science put forth by U.S. Navy Researchers, NASA researchers, 100 University researchers, at least, the U.S. DTRA, etc. The research has verified the existence of nuclear effects in these experiments, yet on the main page you call LENR "a hypothesized type of nuclear reaction". Wikipedia's editors appear unable or unwilling to allow any summary of the edits to show a positive impression of the research, instead continuously bashing the science, and this behavior has gone on for years. Despite the patents, despite the Navy now licensing the technology. Will Wikipedia still bash the science when LENR/Cold Fusion is providing the electricity for it's heat, servers, and lights, and buy a coal fired power plant? organiclies 71.66.237.229 ( talk) 23:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Looks like finally some physics arrives in the community. This article is surprisingly reasonable. -- mfb ( talk) 22:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I have read the article on The ultimate fate of the universe right here on Wikipedia and it says that Quantum tunneling will eventually lead to black holes in the far far future. Isn't quantum tunneling possible under low energy conditions. Doesn't that meet the definition of cold fusion? If it does wouldn't that mean Cold Fusion is not pseudo science but a naturally occurring phenomenon? Xanikk999 ( talk) 23:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry the article is in fact this one: /info/en/?search=Future_of_an_expanding_universe#If_protons_decay_on_higher_order_nuclear_processes
The line says
"In 101500 years, cold fusion occurring via quantum tunnelling should make the light nuclei in ordinary matter fuse into iron-56 nuclei (see isotopes of iron). Fission and alpha particle emission should make heavy nuclei also decay to iron, leaving stellar-mass objects as cold spheres of iron, called iron stars." and then it says "Quantum tunnelling should also turn large objects into black holes. Depending on the assumptions made, the time this takes to happen can be calculated as from 101026 years to 101076 years. Quantum tunnelling may also make iron stars collapse into neutron stars in around 101076 years.[12]"
So therefore if this article is correct then Cold fusion is not pseudo science but an actual thing. I do not know physics very well I'm just quoting from another article so I can't really explain these quotes. Xanikk999 ( talk) 23:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the following reference:
Please replace http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf with https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0375960194911339 and remove the archive url.
The link to lenr-canr.org is deceptive, as what it presents is not the peer-reviewed challenge but an editorialised and apparently unpublished email "debate" between the authors and Fleischmann published on a cold-fusion apologist website with no obvious evidence of copyright release. 82.1.159.160 ( talk) 16:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following sources have problematic links to lenr-canr, a cold fusion promotion website, which appears to have been a result of an error by a free online source bot:
* {{cite journal |ref=harv |mode=cs2 | doi=10.1007/s00114-009-0644-4 | last=Hagelstein | first=Peter L. | title=Constraints on energetic particles in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment | year=2010 | journal=Naturwissenschaften | volume=97 | issue=4 | pages=345–52 | pmid=20143040 | bibcode = 2010NW.....97..345H | hdl=1721.1/71631| url=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinconstraint.pdf}}
The article is in Naturwissenschaften, a copyright journal published by Springer-Verlag and was made freely available by MIT. The correct URL would be https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/71631.
* {{cite journal |ref=harv |mode=cs2 | last=Kitamura | first=Akita | last2=Nohmi | first2=Takayoshi | last3=Sasaki | first3=Yu | last4=Taniike | first4=Akira | last5=Takahashi | first5=Akito | last6=Seto | first6=Reiko | last7=Fujita | first7=Yushi | title=Anomalous Effects in Charging of Pd Powders with High Density Hydrogen Isotopes | journal=Physics Letters A | volume=373 | issue=35 | pages=3109–3112 | year=2009 | doi=10.1016/j.physleta.2009.06.061 | bibcode = 2009PhLA..373.3109K | url=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KitamuraAanomalouse.pdf|citeseerx=10.1.1.380.6124 }}
This article is copyright (Physics Letters A, published by Elsevier). There is no evidence of copyright release. There is a full text online copy at the authors' own institutional site which should be used instead: http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/repository/90001369.pdf.
* {{cite journal |ref=harv |mode=cs2 | last=Scaramuzzi | first=F. | title=Ten years of cold fusion: an eye-witness account | periodical=[[Accountability in Research]] | year=2000 | issue=1&2 | volume=8 | page=77 | issn=0898-9621 | oclc=17959730 | doi=10.1080/08989620008573967 | url=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Scaramuzzitenyearsof.pdf | accessdate=20 January 2016 |citeseerx=10.1.1.380.8109 }}
This article is in Accountability in Research, copyright is held by Taylor & Francis. There is a claim of permission but without evidence of release specifically to the site (T&F do not typically do this other than to authors themselves). This should be left with the DOI as there is past evidence of copyright violation at the lenr-canr site.
* {{cite journal |ref=harv |mode=cs2 | last=Szpak | first=Stanislaw | last2=Mosier-Boss | first2=Pamela A. | last3=Miles | first3=Melvin H. | last4=Fleischmann | first4=Martin | title=Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition | journal=Thermochimica Acta | volume=410 |issue=1–2 | page=101 | year=2004 | doi=10.1016/S0040-6031(03)00401-5 | url=http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMthermalbeh.pdf|citeseerx=10.1.1.380.2400 }}
This link is deceptive, the pdf claims to be a conference paper from the ninth international conference on cold fusion but is actually published in Thermochimica Acta, an Elsevier publication. Elsevier are notoriously reluctant to cede copyright. ResearchGate allows a request for the full text to the authors but not a full text link, so that also indicates this is not a paper that is legitimately available free online.
* [http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/386-IEEE-brief-DeChiaro-9-2015-pdf/ Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) Phenomena and Potential Applications]: [[Naval Surface Warfare Center]] report NSWCDD-PN-15-0040 by Louis F. DeChiaro, PhD, 23 September 2015
This link is broken. It's not used as a source, and it's in a forum, it should be removed. I cannot verify that it is as represented - and even if it was it would be a primary source potentially conflicting with mainstream interpretations so would be a red flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.159.160 ( talk) 12:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The entire "Fleischmann–Pons experiment" section on this page seems to be replicated in Fleischmann–Pons experiment. There are various tweaks and differences, but essentially they're the same couple of thousand words.
Looking at the history, it seems there was an attempt at a split in December 2015 which never really went anywhere, and I'm wondering if the new page created as a result was just forgotten about at the time.
Should it just be redirected back here? Edits to the new page since the split seem fairly minimal, save for a new section at the end that briefly praises one of the recent theories, and very little directly links to it. Andrew Gray ( talk) 19:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Several media reports describe substantial investments by prominent people in a company called Industrial Heat. See: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/brad-pitt-and-laurene-powell-jobs-are-reportedly-invested-in-a-mysterious-cold-fusion-energy-company.html (and many others). Industrial Heat is reportedly working on cold fusion technologies. Would it be helpful to add a section to the main article on "commercial interest" or even "commercial frauds" related to cold fusion? Thanks! -- Lbeaumont ( talk) 10:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
https://journals.aps.org/prc/accepted/ff073P1eKf41950715597a86203c464d727b8de5b — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 17:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The "requirements" include D2O and LiOD hence seems to be a Lithium Deuterium reaction. Some of US (tested) thermonuclear weapons Lithium in place of Tritium; Li7 + energy > He4 + T then T + D > He4 + neutron OR Li6 + D > 2 He4 hence no Tritium or He3 produced? 'Distance between Deuterium atoms in interstitial sites in metal chrystal' except if saturated and >1 Deuterium nucleus per interstitial site. What is the closest approach of deuterium nuclei within the metallic orbitals? Under pressure, Palladium itself degrades if H > 1.7 and erodes to PdH2 (not issue with 5% Silver alloy). Electroplating literature is rife with studies of Hydrogen embrittlement (Hydrogen in metal lattice) and the alkaline LiOH of the reaction (pH ~12) promotes alkali metal cations, Li, entering metal also. At high current and low H+ (D+) concentration there would be Lithium in the Electrode. Shjacks45 ( talk) 02:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/pioneering-technology-promises-unlimited-clean-and-safe-energy should apparently be added to this article.
And why doesn't this article even mention boron or even have a link to aneutronic fusion, and why doesn't that article even mention LENR? -- Espoo ( talk) 15:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
This paragraph was removed some time in the past:
The explosion, if it did happen, may have been just a sudden release of H2 from the palladium and its ignition by catalytic action of the metal. The H2 flame would have been hot enough to melt the cathode, and H2 in the air could easily explain the explosion. At least two other explosions of this nature were reported by researchers who tried to reproduce their experiment.
While there is no corroborating evidence that the explosion reported by F&P actually happened, this report, widely circulated at the time, played an important role in fortering interest of the public and of other scientists. And, if true, it would help explain why F&P felt so confident that they had indeed achieved nuclear fusion. Thus this incident (actual or alleged) should be mentioned in the article,
--
Jorge Stolfi (
talk)
15:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
According to the article on muon-catalyzed fusion, the term 'cold fusion' was coined to describe it. So... why does this article say they're definitely separate things? Also that template up there is chilling. Wikipedia has fallen a long way to start authorizing committees to threaten sanctions and adding qualifiers to the 'be bold' impetus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.186.125 ( talk) 09:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not hot fusion, it's not Muon catalysed fusion, it most closely resembles cold fusion. [1]
My edit was removed due to "it being far-from cold fusion" however the article itself states "at or *near* room temperature." and this experiment while not at room temperature was near it.
Under the heading Current research, it sates that "Cold fusion research continues today[when?] in a few specific venues, but the wider scientific community has generally marginalized the research being done and researchers have had difficulty publishing in mainstream journals. The remaining researchers often term their field [...] Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR), [...]; one of the reasons being to avoid the negative connotations associated with "cold fusion". The new names avoid making bold implications, like implying that fusion is actually occurring" And this experiment is a LANR experiment so I believe it belongs here, as LANR and other forms of assisted nuclear reactions do not have their own distinct pages.
198.28.92.5 ( talk) 09:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
"Pons and Fleischmann never retracted their claims, but moved their research program to France after the controversy erupted. "
moved from where to France?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would anyone care to write about the recent ARPA-E announcement for up to $10M "... to establish clear practices to determine whether low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) could be the basis for a potentially transformative carbon-free energy source." (DE-FOA-0002784 and 2785: Exploratory Topics SBIR/STTR) https://arpa-e.energy.gov/news-and-media/press-releases/us-department-energy-announces-10-million-study-low-energy-nuclear
Based on claims of transmutation and new processes for it (via LENR) much more money could be devoted to this application. Up to an additional funding of $50M has been set aside for "... Converting UNF Radioisotopes into Energy (CURIE) ...to enable commercially viable reprocessing of used nuclear fuel (UNF) ..." (DE-FOA-0002691and DE-FOA-0002692).
https://arpa-e-foa.energy.gov/Default.aspx#FoaId1adbff8d-435f-4644-a570-282d3e67116c .... Aqm2241 ( talk) 18:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Tangent on sourcing in general |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I happened to look at this article today and noticed that it uses a mixture of
footnoted citations and inline citations in a style similar to
parenthetical referencing. I note also, relying on
this, that parenthetical referencing is deprecated in Wikipedia. Unless there is objection here, I will probably edit this article to convert instances of those inline references to
shortened footnotes. If you have objections to this or thoughts about it, please comment here.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
08:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Not done -- I was in the middle of other things when I left the earlier comment and, on a second look today, I didn't see anything I thought needed changing.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
09:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think ColdFusion is now outdated and low energy nuclear reactions is preferred Lawrence18uk ( talk) 23:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Perhaps a bit of perspective on what sort of coverage would merit inclusion in this article would be helpful. In 1992, Japan began a focused $20 million(in 1992 dollars) program that, crucially, was covered by the New York Times. [2] Given this coverage by a major mainstream press outlet, it has enough weight that it is included as a single sentence in the body of the article. If this new request for proposals becomes a program with similar coverage in mainstream press I would support a similar amount of coverage in the article. Without such press coverage or similar secondary sourcing, it doesn't merit similar inclusion. -- Noren ( talk) 00:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
References
@ Noren: See section Later research. Pollack already mentioned. Ixocactus ( talk) 16:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Science philosopher Huw Price has an interesting essay in Aeon magazine on the politics and sociology of cold fusion, in which he claims research is hindered by a reputation trap that can also have negative results in other fields: "People outside the trap won't go near it, for fear of falling in.... People inside the trap are already regarded as disreputable, an attitude that trumps any efforts that they might make to argue their way out, by reason and evidence." [1] His views may be an important perspective worth including, to contextualize and clarify broader issues (please read the whole article, I'm not necessarily advocating the particular quote be included). See additional journalistic context on Price's view and the state of cold fusion studies by science writer Clive Cookson. [2] --Animalparty! ( talk) 01:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Price doesn't understand physics, I am saying that he has no formal qualification. But that is not relevant for my reasoning, it was just a response to a question luring me onto a tangent. His essay appeared in Aeon (magazine), which is not an RS for scientific questions. If he had anything interesting to say, one could overlook that in a pinch. But, as I said, it's just the usual I-am-being-suppressed cliché and not worth including. Otherwise, every article about something that does not work could quote people saying, esentially, "no wonder that we have not yet found out that it does work, because scientists avoid researching it!" -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 13:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe you can ask him whether he still is a Rossi fan seven years after penning the paen? How long till he admits he was wrong?
Reader: They split the bill.
jps ( talk) 03:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
References
It's a bit silly the way some people don't want the reference to cold fusion being in a video game to be included, methinks. But I'm not bothered at all, it's just a pity that my time taken adding the link to it was wasted. Brian Josephson ( talk) 14:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I was working in the biology dept at MIT when the news 1st broke my boss, a very smart man and a biophysicist came in and said: I was talking to people in physics and they say that the theory says that Pons and Fleischman are off by 23 orders of magnitude by boss, a famous scientist not adverse to new ideas, looks down and quietly says: 23 orders of magnitude is a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 ( talk) 17:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
The requirement fot Lithium indicates it is a reactant. Li6 + D equals 2x He4 no neutrons. 174.214.0.10 ( talk) 06:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
In the criticism section no mention is made of the Wigner Energy, which is directly relevant to lattices that are loaded with hydrogen gas for some time, resulting in energy release later from an annealing effect. It should be an aspect of discussions about calorimetry. TheCampaignForRealPhysics ( talk) 23:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)