Editing Cold fusion (section)

=== Citations of quotations ===
{{reflist|group=text|35em|refs=
<ref name="only-support">{{harvnb|Taubes|1993|pp=225–226, 229–231}} "[p. 225] Like those of MIT or Harvard or Caltech, and official Stanford University announcement is not something to be taken lightly. (...) [p. 230] With the news out of Stanford, the situation, as one Department of Energy official put it, 'had come to a head'. The department had had its laboratory administrators send emissaries to Washington immediately. (...) the secretary of energy, had made the pursuit of cold fusion the department's highest priority (...) The government laboratories had free {{sic|rei|gn}} to pursue their cold fusion research, Ianniello said, to use whatever resources they needed, and DOE would cover the expenses. (...) [p. 231] While Huggins may have appeared to be the savior of cold fusion, his results also made him, and Stanford, a prime competitor [of MIT] for patents and rights.", {{harvnb|Close|1992|pp=184, 250}} "[p. 184] The only support for Fleischmann and Pons [at the 26 April US congress hearings] came from Robert Huggins (...) [p. 250] The British Embassy in Washington rushed news of the proceedings to the Cabinet Office and Department of Energy in London. (...) noting that Huggin's heat measurements lent some support but that he had not checked for radiation, and also emphasizing that none of the US government laboratories had yet managed to replicate the effect.", {{harvnb|Huizenga|1993|p=56}} "Of the above speakers (in the US Congress hearings) only Huggins supported the Fleischmann-Pons claim of excess heat."</ref>

<ref name="spiking">{{harvnb|Taubes|1993|pp=418–420}} "While it is not possible for us to categorically exclude spiking as a possibility, it is our opinion, that possibility is much less probable than that of inadvertent contamination or other explained factors in the measurements.", {{harvnb|Huizenga|1993|pp=128–129}}</ref>

<ref name="mixture">{{cite web|mode=cs2|title=Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion|date=27 May 2008|website=Physorg.com|url=http://www.physorg.com/news131101595.html|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120315124847/http://www.physorg.com/news131101595.html|archive-date=15 March 2012}}. The peer reviewed papers referenced at the end of the article are "The Establishment of Solid Nuclear Fusion Reactor"&nbsp;– Journal of High Temperature Society, Vol. 34 (2008), No. 2, pp.85–93 and "Atomic Structure Analysis of Pd Nano-Cluster in Nano-Composite Pd⁄ZrO2 Absorbing Deuterium"&nbsp;– Journal of High Temperature Society, Vol. 33 (2007), No. 3, pp.142–156</ref>

<ref name="fie">{{harvnb|Ackermann|2006}} "(p. 11) Both the Polywater and Cold Nuclear Fusion journal literatures exhibit episodes of epidemic growth and decline."</ref>

<ref name="pathological">{{harvnb|Close|1992|pp=254–255, 329}} "[paraphrasing Morrison] The usual cycle in such cases, he notes, is that interest suddenly erupts (...) The phenomenon then separates the scientists in two camps, believers and skeptics. Interest dies as only a small band of believers is able to 'produce the phenomenon' (...) even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the original practitioners may continue to believe in it for the rest of the careers.", {{harvnb|Ball|2001|p=308}}, {{harvnb|Simon|2002|pp=104}}, {{harvnb|Bettencourt|Kaiser|Kaur|2009}}</ref>

<ref name="branching_and_gamma">{{harvnb|US DOE|1989|p=29}}, {{harvnb|Schaffer|1999|pp=1, 2}}, {{harvnb|Scaramuzzi|2000|p=4}}, {{harvnb|Close|1992|pp=265–268}} "(...) the equality of the two channels is known to be preserved from high energy through 20 keV and down to about 5 keV. A reason that it is not as well known below this energy because the individual rates are so low. However, the rate is known at room temperature from muon catalysed fusion experiments. (...) theory can even accommodate the subtle variations in the ratio at these low temperatures [below 200&nbsp;°C, where the first channel predominates due to 'molecular resonance excitation']", {{harvnb|Huizenga|1993|pp=6–7, 35–36, 75, 108–109, 112–114, 118–125, 130, 139, 173, 183, 217–218, 243–245}} "[page 7] [the first two branches of the reaction] have been studied over a range of deuteron kinetic energies down to a few kiloelectron volts (keV). (...) [branching ratio] appear to be essentially constant at low energies. There is no reason to think that these branching ratios would be measurably altered for cold fusion. [page 108] The near equality of [the first two reaction branches] has been verified also for muon-catalyzed fusion. [in this case the ratio is 1.4 in favor of the first branch, due to 'the p-wave character of muon capture in muon-catalyzed fusion.']", {{harvnb|Goodstein|1994}} (explaining Pons and Fleischmann would both be dead if they had produced neutrons in proportion to their measurements of excess heat) ("It has been said . . . three 'miracles' are necessary [for D + D fusion to behave in a way consistent with the reported results of cold fusion experiments]")</ref>

<ref name="pressure">{{harvnb|Close|1992|pp=257–258}}, {{harvnb|Huizenga|1993|pp=33, 47–48, 79, 99–100, 207, 216}} "By comparing cathode charging of deuterium into palladium with gas charging for a D7Pd ratio of unity, one obtains an equivalent pressure of 1.5x10<sup>4</sup> atmospheres, a value more than 20 orders of magnitude (10<sup>20</sup>) less than the Fleischmann-Pons claimed pressure.", Huizenga also cites {{harvnb|US DOE|2004|pp=33–34}} in chapter ''IV. Materials Characterization: D. 'Relevant' Materials Parameters: 2. Confinement Pressure,'' which has a similar explanation.</ref>

<ref name="consistent">{{harvnb|Huizenga|1993|pp=6–7, 35–36}} "[page 7] This well established experimental result is consistent with the Bohr model, which predicts that the compound nucleus decays predominantly by particle emission [first two branches], as opposed to radioactive capture [third branch], whenever it is energetically possible."</ref>

<ref name="reger">{{harvnb|Reger|Goode|Ball|2009|pp=814–815}} "After several years and multiple experiments by numerous investigators, most of the scientific community now considers the original claims unsupported by the evidence. [from image caption] Virtually every experiment that tried to replicate their claims failed. Electrochemical cold fusion is widely considered to be discredited."</ref>

<ref name="tandberg_not_known_by_FP">{{harvnb|Taubes|1993|p=214}} says the similarity was discovered on 13 April 1991, by a computer scientist and disseminated via the Internet. Another computer scientist translated an old article in the Swedish technical journal ''[[Ny Teknika]]''. Taubes says: "''Ny Teknika'' seemed to believe that Tandberg had missed on the discovery of the century, done in by an ignorant patent bureau. When Pons heard the story, he agreed."</ref>

<ref name="tandberg_not_known_by_FP2">Brigham Young University discovered Tandberg's 1927 patent application, and showed it as proof that Utah University didn't have priority for the discovery of cold fusion, cited in {{harvnb|Wilford|1989}}</ref>

<ref name="last_challenged">{{harvnb|Labinger|Weininger|2005|p=1919}} Fleischmann's paper was challenged in {{cite journal|last=Morrison |first=R.O. Douglas |title=Comments on claims of excess enthalpy by Fleischmann and Pons using simple cells made to boil |doi=10.1016/0375-9601(94)91133-9 |journal=Phys. Lett. A |volume=185 |issue=5–6 |date=28 February 1994 |pages=498–502 |bibcode=1994PhLA..185..498M |citeseerx=10.1.1.380.7178 }}</ref>
}}