Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 9

message: I'm no expert on chemistry, but from my understanding, the name Deuterium Oxide implies one Deuterium atom and one Oxygen. Is not water two hydrogens and one oxygen? Wouldn't "DiDeuterium Oxide" be a better name? Wouldn't the name "Deuterium Oxide" essentially be a heavy version of Hydrogen Per Oxide? For that matter, I could've sworn that Oxide specifically meant two oxygens... So wouldn't Deuterium Oxide essentually be HO2? Not H2O? Anyway, are any experts out there who can correct me, or correct the article properly? I'm not going to touch it because I'm just an armchair physicist and really have no business making statements in any official capacity.
: I'm no chemist either.  A quick look on google showed that dideuterium oxide is synonymous with deuterium oxide, although it looks illogical, as you suggest.  Also, peroxide means 2 oxygens, while oxide means one. So, I would thing that the article is fine.Pcarbonn 16:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a chemist- The usual nomenclature for these inorganic compounds specifies the numbers the anion (in this case a single oxide gets no prefix) and the informed reader is assumed to know how many of the cation are needed to balance those anions.  There's more to the naming of oxygen than you suggest- a pair of bound neutral oxygen atoms is O2 molecular oxygen, peroxide is [O2]2- with a -1 charge per oxygen, and a dioxide has two O2- comprising a total of -4 charge.  If necessary the charge of the cation is specified rather than the number of equivalents.  See the list of compounds at oxide- where Cu2O is named Copper(I) Oxide and CuO is named Copper(II) Oxide.  Perhaps this is a silly way to do this, but specifying the number of both cation and anion was regarded as redundant, and nomenclature is extremely slow to change.  Dideuterium Oxide is comprehensible but not the preferred name, as it contains redundant information.  --Noren 17:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification.  Indeed, why use dideuterium oxide, if deuterium oxide is shorter and unambiguous. I can understand the logic.Pcarbonn 19:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deuterium Oxide = Heavy Water? 

message: I added "bubble fusion" as a type of experiment the press is likely to confuse with cold fusion.  What is the point of removing this comment?--Ron Marshall 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument of Zarniwoot was that bubble fusion is speculative.  The argument I would add is that the lead section of the article is too long already, so we should focus on what cold fusion is, not what it is not. Pcarbonn 19:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bubble fusion

message: Morphological Changes Indicating Substantial Anomalous Energy  
Szpak, S., et al., "Evidence of Nuclear Reactions in the Pd Lattice," Naturwissenschaften, Vol. 92(8), p. 394-397, (2005)
STemplar 23:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naturwissenschaften Citation 

message: I, thoroughly read this article which explains in deep details the experiments, the history, the controversies and even more than that. It is a bit underreferenced because this is a controversial topic and as such every statement should have an inline cite. Lincher 17:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I've placed many of the references at the end of each paragraph, instead of at the end of each statement.  Is this an appropriate way to do it ?  Is it clear enough that the reference is for the whole paragraph ? Pcarbonn 20:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA promotion

message: The lead section currently says: "Cold fusion, also called condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS) or "low energy nuclear reactions" (LENR), was initially reported by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons at the University of Utah in March of 1989.".  I propose to change it to this:
:Cold fusion is generally used to refer to "condensed matter nuclear science" (CMNS) or "low energy nuclear reactions" (LENR).  Such cold fusion was initially reported by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons at the University of Utah in March of 1989.
OK ? Pcarbonn 09:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  ObsidianOrder 09:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Minor nitpick: muon-catalyzed fusion "consumes more energy than it generates" - that's not possible since energy is conserved ;)  This is probably intended to mean "the amount of energy it produces as heat is only slightly larger than the energy required as input to the reaction".  Ok, perhaps there is no elegant way to explain it in a brief sentence, but the point is that the heat output is *always* greater than the total input of all forms of energy combined, but obviously you can't run it in a closed loop with some kind of heat engine until the ratio becomes greater than 1 over the efficiency of whatever you use to complete the loop.  You would need ouput at least 400% of the input if you have a steam turbine/electical generator/thermocouple or whatever with an efficiency of only 25%.  MCF output is somewhere in the single-digit percentages above input, I believe?  ObsidianOrder 09:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Conservation of energy does not mean that all reactions are exothermic, which seems to be what you're claiming here.  In chemistry endothermic reactions are quite common.  In a nuclear reaction such as this, energy can be converted to mass as well as the reverse.  The muon decays to an electron and two neutrinos, the energy for which must come from somewhere.  If the net result is more mass, or higher entropy, reactions certainly can be endothermic.  Do you have some more detailed reason to doubt the published work in this area? --Noren 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold fusion is not just CMNS 

message: New Energy Times appears to be keeping a running list of current published papers in the field, they also have the bibliographical references to the F&P 1990, Oriani 1990, Wilson 1992 critique, and the 1992 F&P response to the Wilson critique.
http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/SelectedPapers.htm
Note also the 2004 Journal of Fusion Energy paper, as well as the six other papers published in the last two years. 
STemplar 06:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input.  Could you add the full bibliographical references to the articles you mention ? It would be great. Pcarbonn 09:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Published Papers