Talk:Stanley Pons

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

File:Pons7.gif

Stanley Pons profile photo

Old thread

I've replaced this image with the full field of the canonical image, showing the piece of cold-fusion apparatus that Pons was holding up. While it may be possible to find another photo of the man, this is the famous photo of Pons (with Fleischmann; see his bio) during the year that their work was feted and promoted around the world. +sj +

Nationality in the lead

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)[reply]

That's right. And I'm OK with American-born French. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Discuss on talk page

Please, discuss on talk page, instead of engaging in this back and forth disruptive editing: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit request

Change this After the claims were found to be unreproducible, the scientific community determined the claims were incomplete, unreproducible, and inaccurate for this Those that failed to reproduce the claim attacked the research results as being incomplete, unreproducible, and inaccurate. in this section - Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of that section we could also add:

That section has a more developed version of the same info. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good addition. Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest full revert of disputed content. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the article to this version from 26 September 2010 to remove the BLP violation. Altenatively use this version and if possible, include this edit by Enric Naval. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that the problem comes from this IP edit[5]. Maybe we could simply nuke that edit. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Oppose, this reverts back the undue and excessive criticism that adds nothing of value. 21:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose, neither of these edits addresses the BLP concern; specifically, the second and third include the IP edit ("the scientific community") that I thought Petri Krohn objected to. --JN 466 00:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment considering it seems we're still a way from achieving consensus may I suggest no further use of the editprotected template until consensus is clearly achieved. I would suggest at least 24 hours be given to everyone to weigh in, particularly those on somewhat different sides here (i.e. Petri Krohn and Off2Riob or Jayen466). While this is a potential BLP issue, I think given that most agree here it isn't a terrible violation to try and achieve consensus on whatever change, whether temporary or permanent to avoid unnecessary disputes. Nil Einne (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Cold fusion" versus "Stanley Pons"

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)[reply]

No results

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)[reply]

Doctoral advisor

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)

SPAWAR Reproduced P&F's Results Within a Year

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)[reply]

Wikipedia should stop allowing edits to the Stanley Pons Wiki that imply that his most important work was invalid, and implying that the "cold fusion" reaction is/was unrepeatable. The secret was and is to achieve a very high gas loading ratio into the metal lattice. (over 90%) Edits that claim an inabiliity to replicate P&F's results are simply incorrect.

You are forum-shopping. See my response on Talk:Cold fusion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most important vindication of Pons work to date: 2017 NASA International Patent Application on nuclear reactions in deuterated metals, and 2 NASA papers showing that low level x-ray or gamma ray exposure of deuterated metals create isotopes, beta, neutrons, etc. Control metals (undeuterated) did not exhibit nuclear reactions.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170002584.pdf low energy photon exposure of deuterated metals

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170002544.pdf x-ray exposure of deuterated metals

International patent application on the process, like 120 pages long. http://e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2017.09.14-Published-Application-1663.0002PCT3.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.237.229 (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gadling, I'm not forum shopping at all, what I'm trying to do is edit wiki pages that are grossly inaccurate in denying that nuclear reactions take place when you deuterate certain metals and non-metals beyond 90% and hit them with nearly any source of energy. Pons and Fleischmann's work is entirely valid, it made the Navy peer reviewed and published works possible, and even Navy's very entry into the field. Navy then moved the work to NASA over radiation concerns, and now there's these two very well done studies by NASA revealing excess heat, neutrons, creation of isotopes, beta emitters lasting over 12 months,, etc etc. Science is all about being wrong and correcting your course, without taking it personally. Wiki editors would benefit from that, and it's readers rewarded with accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.237.229 (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]