Talk:Stanley Pons

message: I reverted back to Pons being of French nationality per WP:MOSBIO. If folks would like to go with American-born French... that could work as well. The article says that he gave up his US citizenship, so he is not of American nationality, correct? Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. And I'm OK with American-born French. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it. I see alot of XYZ-born American whatevers, so I guess this is pay back :). Cheers, --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationality in the lead

message: Please, discuss on talk page, instead of engaging in this back and forth disruptive editing:    . Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss on talk page 

message: At present, most of the section headed "Career" is not really about Pons but about the idea of cold fusion, and there are lots of references to this. It seems to me that (not least because this is an issue about which some people still have strong feelings) this article ought to have only the briefest outline, and to link to the WP article on cold fusion for more.
In particular, I have no idea what the note on an experiment in 2009 (long after Pons stopped working on cold fusion, as far as I know and as far as this article indicates) is doing here. (More precisely: I'm pretty sure I understand why it *is* here but I can't think of any good idea why it *should be*.)
Unless I hear cogent objections (I'll wait a few days) I propose to do the following. (1) Check that the text and refs on cold fusion here are adequately represented in the main cold fusion article. (2) Delete the remainder of the paragraph after "but generally failed", all of which is about the subsequent career of the idea of cold fusion and not about Pons. The right place for anyone who wants to know more about cold fusion is the article on cold fusion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gareth McCaughan (talk • contribs) 11:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cold fusion" versus "Stanley Pons" 

message: It is NOT true that Pons and Fleischmann had "no results" during the five years of work for Toyota (1992-1998). They reproduced the excess heat on  numerous occasions, but their results were not conclusive enough for technological exploitation.
Lignomontanus (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: No results

message: The NYT citation clearly says that although Pons worked with Fleischmann at U of Southampton, his thesis advisor was Alan Bewick.   I have corrected the entry.KaturianKaturian 23:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctoral advisor 

message: SPAWAR Reproduced P&F's Results Within a Year
U.S. Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, Pacific Group, duplicated Pons and Fleischmann's work by 1990, and by 2009, had published 23 peer reviewed papers saying that the nuclear effect is real, that transmutation of base metals occurs, that tritium is produced, that excess heat is produced, and that low level neutrons are produced.  Below is the video link that presents Navy's work results, it's a 1 hour and 3 minute presentation by the researchers who actually did the work.   Early efforts at repeatability failed due to insufficient gas loading of the metal, which Navy overcame by co-depositing the gas and metal at the same time, onto the cathode. 
Currently NASA Langley has taken over the research, and are currently running grid testing of different materials to check for the same type nuclear reactions using more abundant metals and gas (Ni & H2).  (NASA Langley Chief Scientists Zawodny and Bushnell).  
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Video (2009) 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2LV8rM7vn0
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  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiclies (talk • contribs) 21:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are forum-shopping. See my response on Talk:Cold fusion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Forum shopping again. See Talk:Cold fusion and Talk:Martin Fleischmann. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

text: YouTube is not peer reviewed, and patents are not peer reviewed. Your sources are not sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: SPAWAR Reproduced P&F's Results Within a Year