User:Cryptic C62/Cold fusion


 * Conversation Log
 * User talk:Cryptic C62: Initial request from Hipocrite, discussion with Abd. First diff
 * User talk:Cryptic C62: Participation response from Woonpton. First diff
 * User talk:EdChem: Participation response/query from EdChem. First diff
 * User talk:William M. Connolley: Discussion of topic ban of Abd and Hipocrite. First diff
 * User talk:Cryptic C62: Withdrawal of participation by Hipocrite, other comments regarding Abd and Jed Rothwell. First diff
 * User talk:Hipocrite/06/2009: Discussion of withdrawal by Hipocrite. First diff
 * User talk:Cryptic C62: Notification of overly large post by Abd. First diff
 * User talk:Abd: Notification of removal of large post. First diff

Characterization of Naturwissenschaften
After much discussion on the matter, it is my opinion that the journal Naturwissenschaften should not be characterized as a "life sciences" journal. As evidenced by the volume of discussion generated, the phrase can cause doubt within the reader's mind as to the validity of the result and the ability of the Naturwissenschaften editorial team to review a physics-related article. This is not to say that I endorse the use of the paper as a source: If the source in question is included in the article and if there is reason to doubt the validity of the source, such doubts should be discussed in detail and attributed to reliable sources. They should not be vaguely implied by phrases such as "life sciences". This position has been supported by Enric Naval, Abd, GoRight, Objectivist and, to some extent, Kim D. Petersen. This conclusion was later supported by Coppertwig. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of Naturwissenschaften article


A consensus was quickly reached that the above paper should be discussed in a News / History section due to the attention it has received in scientific media. It should not be presented as factual due to the lack of peer-reviewed secondary sources which discuss the paper. This recommendation also applies more generally to any other primary source papers which present cold fusion results without being discussed in other peer-reviewed publications. This position has been supported by Abd, Kim D. Petersen, GoRight, Enric Naval, Hipocrite, and Objectivist. This conclusion was later supported by Coppertwig. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Mention of patents
A discussion was held regarding the presentation of a patent (specifically U.S. Patent 7,381,368) in cold fusion. It is my recommendation that relevant patents be included in the article. "Relevant" in this case means that either the patent itself mentions "cold fusion" or a discussion in a reliable secondary source indicates that the patent is indeed related to cold fusion. To that end, there was a broad consensus against using New Energy Times as a secondary source. It is also my recommendation that cold fusion explicitly state that the US Patent Office automatically rejects patents claiming cold fusion so long as a reliable up-to-date source can be provided to back it up. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)