User talk:HaploTR

Cold fusion
. I'm banned from the topic at the moment, but I do believe that I'm allowed to discuss cold fusion with consenting editors. I can point you to resources you could use to gain a far deeper knowledge of the topic than is possible with the current article, which you have correctly identified as impoverished. There is a ton of information, both positive and negative, available in reliable source, but it's been excluded. If it were included, there would be many articles on various aspects of the field, but that's been resisted as creating POV forks which, of course, would, in fact, depend entirely on how the subtopics were treated!

Attempting to stuff it all into one page continually creates conflicts about undue weight which are then, unfortunately, decided not by the recommended process of balancing reliably sourced material with other reliably sourced material that might contradict it, but by original research and synthesis about what is fringe and what is not, with "fringe" coming to be defined circularly. I.e., it's "fringe" because there very little reliable source, and there is very little reliable source because if anyone writes about cold fusion, they must be "fringe" and therefore not reliable. ArbComm rejected that kind of exclusion, but it has prevailed at cold fusion, because there are editors who opposed that decision, and there is nobody to enforce it. The fact is that there is almost no recent quality reliable source opposing cold fusion, over the last five years, and plenty of reliable source favoring it, and even if we look at the entire history of cold fusion, there is far more positive report than negative. It's a mess!

By the way, I'm WP:COI on this topic. You can get an idea of my involvement by looking at Storms (2010), convenience copy at http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf, I'm credited before the bibliography. I'm COI because I've started a business designing and selling kits for easy replication of the SPAWAR neutron findings, and I edited that Storms review (at his invitation, not for the journal), which is the most recent and the most authoritative review of the topic to date.

So, are you willing to allow me to comment here? If not, you can just delete this and I won't mind. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind if you comment here, Abd. Thanks for the link. HaploTR (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)