Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>
I just discovered how to make my head hurt
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cold+fusion+site%3Avixra.org - David Gerard (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Anyone feel like incorporating feedback?
I mentioned it on LessWrong and asked for feedback. Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote an extended critique, which was nice of him to bother doing. Anyone want to go through? The article could do with expansion in most areas and some reordering - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Lots of interesting comments in that discussion. The LW article and full discussion. That LW article contained many errors, but many users corrected them. The RW approach gets skewered skillfully. --Abd (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there a logical or coherent reason that the fringe element comes up with as motivation for the vast amount of people to cover up '"cold" fusion? It still wouldn't mean free or abundant energy. If it exists as claimed, I think it comes from adding paranoia with ignorance of terminology and methods used to produce scientifically valid data, the amount of energy produced and the rate it is produced wouldn't be applicable to very much. Scientists and government workers would generally receive incredible benefits from it as much as anyone else. It's not as if we live a rich lifestyle or something to be at all motivated to take on the insane project that would be needed to cover it up. — Unsigned, by: 18.104.22.168 / talk 16:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Let me address your question. I have worked with hundreds of cold fusion researchers as a copy editor, and when I upload their papers. I have attended many conferences. I do not know a single one of them who believes that cold fusion has been "covered up" by the establishment. On the contrary, all of the funding in this field comes from the establishment. These are all mainstream scientists from universities and national labs, not "fringe elements." There are some fringe elements in the field as well. I do not work with them or upload their papers, but anyway, as far as I know, none of them believes that cold fusion has been covered up. Frankly, that notion is absurd.
- In other words, this "cover up" belief does not exist. It is ascribed to researchers by people who are opposed to the research, including the authors here, but there is no evidence that cold fusion researchers or their supporters actually believe this. There is no mention of it in any scientific review, book or in the mass media as far as I know. There are descriptions of academic politics and opposition, for example in papers by Schwinger and Hagelstein. That is not a cover up. There was opposition to other research, such as the laser, but the laser was never covered up.
- I hope that clarifies the situation.
- - Jed Rothwell, LENR-CANR.org
This article is technically incorrect
This article has numerous technical errors. Honestly, it is a completely fantasy, without any connection to the experimental evidence for cold fusion or the claims made by researchers. I could make a list of the problems, but I do not think the authors here would be interested in correcting these mistakes. Anyway, if you wish to know the actual facts about cold fusion let me recommend this paper:
Here is a 6-minute video based mainly on that paper:
This article misrepresented my views, claiming that I believe in "all things" related to cold fusion. On the contrary, I am on record in many papers and presentations asserting that much of the cold fusion literature is nonsense. See, for example, this keynote presentation:
I corrected the text in this article to reflect my views. I expect someone here will soon change it back. I will not engage in edit wars. Let me say only that you do yourselves and your cause a disservice when you publish statements that anyone can see are factually wrong. This is the Internet. Anyone can easily fact-check you.
- Jed Rothwell, LENR-CANR.org.
- As I expected, someone deleted my changes to my own bio. This is childish of you. It is not, dare I say, rational for you to contradict the public record. When someone gives a keynote speech at a university and says that cold fusion is mainly "schlock science" and "baloney" it makes no sense for you to say he is a "believer in all things." Anyone can check your assertions and that is not the case.
- I have said far more skeptical things about cold fusion than anyone here. I have said these things in public, on video, at universities and elsewhere, using my own name. You people are not skeptics -- I am.
- I will not try to change this again. Before you erase my comments, I suggest you think about what you are doing, and saying, and ask yourselves what purpose it serves to lie about people and to write this ignorant nonsense about scientific research you know nothing about.
- - Jed Rothwell, LENR-CANR.org
Some less-than-happy responses
- The first link was not, the second one was. Jed Rothwell is what he claims to be, the "librarian" at lenr-canr.org, a compendium of papers on LENR (popularly "cold fusion"). Many of the papers were published under peer review, many were conference papers, and there are other documents as well. Rothwell does not discriminate against papers negative about cold fusion; if there is a bias there, it would be because some authors don't give permission, which he requires. There is another bibliography compiled by Dieter Britz, a skeptical electrochemist, and I have been given permission to host it, it is linked from: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/britz-cold-fusion-bibliography/ The Britz bibliography only covers mainstream peer-reviewed papers. In recent years, most scientists in the field have been supporting the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, which, as a specialty journal, Britz does not cover (but Rothwell does). --Abd (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The Cold Fusion ICO!
Written up by me: Synthestech offers “cold transmutation” alchemy on the blockchain. Plus UFOs. The interesting bit here is (a) claims of bacterially assisted cold transmutation (b) the guy's also a UFO nut - David Gerard (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)