User talk:Ura Ursa

Creating a new account out of an abundance of caution as I dip my toe into a topic with more controversy than I prefer to have associated with my name. Ura Ursa (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Cold fusion review
I have a copy of the review you requested, but to email it to you, you need to register an email to your account. When you have, drop me an email using Special:EmailUser/Smartse and I will email you it. Smartse (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

your request for a copy of a paper.
Re, I'm surprised you didn't notice this, which gives a convenience link in the first sentence; at that point the web site was still blacklisted; that has now been lifted, and this, where there was a review of this paper as a reliable source, the consensus being, generally, that it is, depending -- as always -- on what it is used for and how it is used.

In addition, you should see Wikiversity, for a list of recent sources, including reviews. I or someone will, I assume, add convenience links to that bibliography. most of these papers are available. A link to a preprint for the paper you want is currently the last entry on that page. There are about 17 positive reviews of cold fusion in the last five years, as shown there. There are no negative reviews in that period, published under peer review, except for what is only a response to Marwan and Krivit (JEM, 2009), Shanahan (2010), and the copublished response to that by a long list of CF researchers is particularly useful. I have a copy of the response, though not of the Shanahan paper itself, I'm looking for one.

In general, Storms (2007) covers all this material, and Storms would ordinarily be considered reliable source, having been independently published. The concept that anyone involved with a field is therefore unusable as a reliable source would lead to a conclusion that reviews by experts in a field are ipso facto unusable, this is not a position that has ever been sustained on review. ("Fringe" is not relevant to reliable source, but "fringe publisher" is. I.e., Mallove or Beaudette are not generally reliable source because the publisher is specialized to an allegedly fringe field, and it certainly was fringe at the time of publication. The situation at present is ambiguous. It is regarded as fringe by many, that's clear, but peer reviewers at mainstream publications, over the last five years, seem to have a different opinion, in practice.)

I have a copy of Storms if you have any questions, as well as of the ACS LENR Sourcebook volume 1, please feel free to email me or ask on my Talk page. I am currently banned from articles and pages relating to cold fusion, but under discretionary sanctions, and this apparently does not include user talk pages, if the user consents. I could have, of course, emailed you, but prefer transparency. --Abd (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I have it now. Ura Ursa (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You may also be interested in a seminar page, Cold fusion/Excess heat correlated with helium, which is undeveloped, but there is a Sources page underneath that which I've been working on, which has quotes from many sources. Wikiversity is great for developing study resources, original research is allowed, and there is utterly no concern about "undue weight." Forking is encouraged to deal with conflicts over pages. Don't fight, fork! Is that like "Make love, not war"? --Abd (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have created a Wikiversity page that you may be interested in, . --Abd (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Ura Ursa (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Civility on Talk:Cold Fusion
Please be advised that this recent edit on Talk:Cold Fusion contains what appears to be a personal attack on another editor. I would recommend that you reconsider and choose to strike or refactor part or all of that statement. Please also be advised that this area has been a contentious one, and the article and talk page are currently the subject of Discretionary Sanctions per the Arbitration Committee's decision here. Further edits that do not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines or policies may result in sanctions per that decision. --Noren (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI
Sockpuppet investigations/Nrcprm2026. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)