Talk:Martin Fleischmann

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lenr-canr link[edit]

(Note: This is a separate issue to the above whitelisting discussion, and is about one specific case and point) According to Wikipedia:El#Restrictions on linking "Copyrighted material which is reproduced, without verified permission, by someone other than the copyright holder must never be linked." The link to lenr-canr included on this page is immediately followed by the text "(unverified reprint)". Should this link be included since the disclaimer (which we shouldn't have, as wikipedia shouldn't include disclaimers) suggests that the link is breaking this part of wikipedia policy? Verbal chat 17:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed your edit, Verbal. The above discussion was about the specific link you removed, and the "unverified reprint" referred to the fact that ... it wasn't verified as a true copy. That phrase is unusual, but it was allowed because, with it, we had 100% consensus among those participating for inclusion, and this was reviewed by many experienced editors. Hence I'm reverting. It would be better, since you object to the disclaimer, to remove the disclaimer, so I'll do that, though I have no personal objection to it, it's true, and, in fact, it invites verification. I don't agree, though, that we don't allow disclaimers, a POV tag on an article is a disclaimer. Please don't disrupt a settled consensus without obtaining a new consensus. As far as I'm concerned, you would be welcome to reopen the discussion above and to present new arguments, but the issues you now raise were discussed above with respect to this specific link. It's not a separate issue, it is the same issue. --Abd (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verbal, the "verified permission" phrase from WP:EL has been removed from the guideline. There was discussion of this section at [1], the language you cited seems to have only lasted a few weeks. It was removed the same day you cited it; however, this was reverted, then restored to the pre-April 11 version. Which is where it stands. Had you looked the next day, you would not have seen this "verified permission" thing. --Abd (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verbal took the entire reference out, in spite of massive discussion above. I've reverted. I've been a tad busy elsewhere, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG. Cat away, mice play.--Abd (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did no such thing, I removed the link to a possibly copyright infringing copy, the reference remained. I have no interest in Abd's games. Verbal chat 13:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "entire reference" meant the link to the page and the dislaimer about accuracy of copy, i.e., "unverified reprint." Yes, the original reference, the conference paper itself, is still there. Now, to the point. The issue of copyright was discussed above, and in many other places. See [2] and open up the collapse to see the discussion. You are editing against consensus, Verbal, and this isn't a game. You've been asked to revert yourself, it seems you are refusing. Just so you know. --Abd (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lenr-canr.org claims permission from editors and publishers on their site.[3]. Numerous editors and administrators have agreed that lenr-canr should not be treated as violating copyright. There is no evidence of violation that has been asserted for any page hosted there, and any editor could easily develop such evidence by writing to a publisher, warning them about the copy of their material hosted on lenr-canr.org, and seeing what happens. Note that the link involved here was specifically approved by an administrator.[4]
Verbal is now edit warring to keep the link out, I just reverted it back in. Verbal has previously argued against lenr-canr.org links on the copyright claim, that argument was rejected at [5].
It's been stated that any web site could claim permission, as if such a claim means nothing. However, a false claim subjects the maker of the claim to penalties under copyright law, at least in the U.S. It is, in itself, an offense, separate from the offense of copyright violation. The site owner here is a known individual with known location, the site is reputable and widely known and highly visible. It's preposterous to act as if we should assume copyright violation in the presence of explicit claim to permission for all hosted material. From other editorial activity of Verbal, I must assume that copyright violation claim is a red herring here, the real purpose is an anti-fringe agenda. I'll warn the editor. --Abd (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section in the Arbitration Committee ruling is this:

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That really has nothing to do with this. Verbal chat 13:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Petri Krohn, that remark works on the assumption that lenr-canr.org was blacklisted only to control content. Otherwise, that statement is totally useless in this case. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The assumption is valid, though. If you read Mike.lifeguard's decision at meta, cited from the current whitelisting discussion at WikiMedia:Spam whitelist, you can see that his decision to deny delisting was based on content argument. He made it look like it wasn't. Same as you attempted to do, in fact, before ArbComm. Basically, a conclusion that links are being "pushed," as distinct from simply being used appropriately, depends on a judgment that the links were inappropriate for the articles. No clearly inappropriate link was being used on Wikipedia at the time of the decision in December, a conclusion I can support by history of the articles and the obvious consensus on allowing them at that time, plus what has happened since. Verbal's attempt to remove this link on a copyvio claim is a direct denial of your prior decision to whitelist the link. Are you confirming that copyvio policy prohibits this link? If so, then you have changed your mind and you should remove the whitelisting and the offending links. As the deciding admin you can do that and are, indeed, obligated to do that or at least publicly recuse. In this case, Petri Krohn is serving notice that ArbComm is involved. That's valid. The strong attempts to remove this link, based on a farrago of arguments, presented one after another, are clearly POV-pushing, content disputes, and there are two related decisions, not merely the recent one I facilitated. There is also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, which prohibits exclusion of content based on arguments that it's fringe. And that's the real issue here; Verbal is not obsessed with copyvio, there is a reason why he picked this particular link and this particular blacklisted site for his focus, and it's obvious from his editing history with Cold fusion, and, I assure you, it will be obvious to ArbComm. --Abd (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the above editor has been blocked for one year! That was either very fast (joke) or to do with something else. In any case I think which should just ignore the attempt to derail the discussion here and elsewhere. Verbal chat 15:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Blocked over something which has utterly nothing to do with this, and which block may be appealed and overturned, it appears to violate block policy, though that will be, I'm sure, debatable. What does this have to do with our purposes here, beyond a pure ad hominem argument? You may ignore the warning if you wish, and at your own risk. --Abd (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would class this as disruption too, as it was a failure to assume good faith and brought an issue which is irrelevant. However, my point in posting was to alert people not to await a response as it would take a long time(!) and to ask to not derail the conversation. I should have made that clearer it seems. It is not an ad hom to let people know he's been blocked. Let's return to the issue at hand, please. Verbal chat 17:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed 1 ref[edit]

  • Covington, A. K. (1995). "Obituary : Harold Reginald Thirsk (1915–1995)". Electrochimica Acta. 40 (8): xii. doi:10.1016/0013-4686(95)90227-9.

The only reference to Fleischmann is: "Together with Wynne-Jones, he formed a strong electrochemistry group in Newcastle which included, notably, interlia: Ron Armstrong, Willy Beck, Alan Bewick, Geoff Briggs, Ray Brown, Arthur Covington, Tom Dickinson, John Dobson, Bob Grieff, Martin Fleischmann, and Keith Oldham.". --Enric Naval (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar[edit]

“Fleischmann, Pons and the researchers who believed that they had replicated the effect remain convinced the effect is real, but the general scientific community remains sceptical.” “remain” should arguably be “remained” – Fleischmann himself is dead.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Scientific Evidence Claims that "cold fusion" is reproducible, and nuclear[edit]

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. 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 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).

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


Link to U.S. Navy website where they are licensing their patent to use this same nuclear reaction to change nuclear waste into stable non-radioactive metals: http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/pacific/techtransfer/productsservices/Pages/Technologies.aspx

Wikipedia should stop allowing edits to the Martin Fleischmann Wiki that imply that his most important life work was invalid, and implying that the "cold fusion" reaction is/was unrepeatable. It is in fact highly repeatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiclies (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are forum-shopping. See my response on Talk:Cold fusion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request moving these links to the Main Page for Martin Fleischmann as NASA has very recently published 2 papers and filed an international patent application on the process of energizing deuterated metal to initiate nuclear reactions. The method of deuterating and the method of giving the process the energy it needs to start, are irrelevant. The NASA work is a continuation of U.S. Navy SPAWAR's work, and people who did the work at SPAWAR are in this patent and the 2 papers. The chief Navy researcher, Robert Duncan, has repeatedly given credit to Pons and Fleischmann for showing Navy how to create the reaction. The links below are definitive proof that Flieschmann's work achieved a nuclear reaction in a test tube, using no radioactive materials, and using deuterated metal. Links: 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, like 120 pages long. http://e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2017.09.14-Published-Application-1663.0002PCT3.pdf

Please move to main page and delete statements of doubt about the nuclear nature of Fleischmann's claims, add this to the Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischamnn pages also and remove the statements and claims that cast doubt on cold fusion, and the work of Pons and Flieschmann.

No. The last time I checked, scientific progress was documented in peer-reviewed scholarly papers. Not in YouTube videos, not in patent applications. None of those are subject to anything resembling editorial oversight or peer review. Extraordinary claims, such as "cold fusion", require extraordinary evidence. There's also the slight problem, mentioned by Eggishorn at Talk:Cold fusion, that your sources don't actually mention Fleischmann and thus don't have anything at all to say about the subject of this article. Huon (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So when NASA and Navy researchers say they are seeing nuclear reactions that isn't enough? I'm sure the work will be peer reviewed in time, but as you can see this work took more than a year just to verify lasting beta emissions. Will we give any credibility to U.S. Navy Space and Naval Warfare Pacific Group and the U.S. NASA organization? Robert Duncan Of Navy SPAWAR clearly credits Pons & Fleischmann every time he has spoken on the topic. My link to SPAWAR does indeed include Robert Duncan giving credit to Pons & Fleischmann for starting the work, so Eggishorn perhaps didn't watch the SPAWAR video. The SPAWAR researchers who are part of the NASA work include Pam Mosier-Boss, and Larry Forsley of JWK International who collaborated with Navy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiclies (talk • contribs) 21:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what, exactly, those NASA researchers say, but their publication you linked to doesn't mention Fleischmann, and their publication wasn't subject to peer review. Science isn't done by press release, and Fleischmann is a prime example for the reasons against doing it that way. If there are peer-reviewed scientific articles, please point out those. Huon (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you still view Fleischmann in a poor light when the physics world is beginning to see he was right. P & F were likely omitted from the papers to avoid the negativity that's wrongly associated with the P&F works. The papers will certainly be forthcoming, as the patent office and the research community become informed and a little less afraid to get published and/or receive funding. Getting nuclear reactions from deuterated metal is what Fleischmann started,, and nobody else ever thought it could happen. Now Navy and NASA are sure of it, as are hundreds of university labs, independent labs, and government labs all over the world. The Navy SPAWAR group has approximately 26 peer reviewed and published papers saying it's real, dating from approximately 1990. Their work was moved to NASA Glenn due to radiation concerns. Organiclies (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All this is no reason to include that stuff in this article.
You say "I'm sure the work will be peer reviewed in time" and "The papers will certainly be forthcoming" - that's great! We will include it when taht happens, if it turns out to be relevant.
You say "P & F were likely omitted from the papers to avoid [..]" That's possible, but it is original research on your side. I can pick any publication at random, pick any Wikipedia article on any subject at random, claim that the publication is about that subject, and invent a reason why the publication does not mention the subject.
Why the haste? Just build that working reactor, and you'll have an article saying it works. Wikipedia is for telling people how it is, not for telling them how you want it to be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again , who wouldn't believe a 28 year body of research by U.S. Navy and now NASA scientists. Wiki editors appear to be knit picking the type of fusion or type of nuclear reaction in these papers and the patent. Did you miss the long discussion NASA gave to D-D fusion in this work? There is no "rush" on my part, and I'd add that wiki has ignored and made a longstanding action to deny that there is even a nuclear reaction taking place. Anytime , anyone, deuterates metal and adds an input energy and gets a nuclear reaction, you have to give credit to Pons and Fleischmann for starting the whole area of study. Many labs have duplicated Pons and Fleischmann's work. Would you like links? Would you like links to the Nav's 26 research papers that say the reaction is nuclear, that transmutation of elements happens, that excess heat is produced, neutrons detected, gamma detected, x-rays detected,, etc? The cold fusion article should be removed from the pseudo science category and Pons and Fleischmann's articles should be updated to show that their work has been validated, replicated all over the world. Or do we wait till they win the Nobel? If Wiki is really for telling people "how it is",, why is the focus of the article on the scandal and not on the Navy's 26 papers. Why isn't the focus on the fact that M.I.T. falsified the results of their failed duplication efforts, to faslely show the reaction failed to produce heat? Why isn't Wiki even willing give top billing to peer reviewed and published work that streams back over these past 28 years, and even NAVY/NASA research that is only 3 months old? Please review the papers and the peer review of P&F and the Navy's many published peer review works, and the peer reviewed papers from over 100 government, university, and private labs from around the globe. If There is a bias here it doesn't serve anyone. This is not the place for bias that kicks scientific so many published peer reviewed studies to the curb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.237.229 (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC) 71.66.237.229 (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We'll gladly update Pons and Fleischmann's articles if there are reliable sources that have something new to say about Pons and Fleischmann. We won't update them based on sources that don't mention Pons and Fleischmann; that would be, at best, an original synthesis of sources, something Wikipedia explicitly does not accept. Huon (talk) 08:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Martin Fleischmann. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_Fleischmann&oldid=1202047056"