Talk:Cold fusion: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 262:

Where are the reviews? I can't believe there are so many papers and no reviews. Is [http://www.phy.bme.hu/deps/exp_ph/docok/ap08180.pdf Kalman et al (2008)] a secondary source? [[Special:Contributions/208.54.4.70|208.54.4.70]] ([[User talk:208.54.4.70|talk]]) 00:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

:I'm aware of two peer-reviewed review articles: Biberian (2007) [http://www.jeanpaulbiberian.net/Download/Paper%2056.pdf] International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology, and Hubler 2007 [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVV-4N7XP2C-P&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8c05de5072ca7cbfa8640f5276727f5b] (Surface and Coatings Technology). (I believe these are peer-reviewed papers in regular journals not devoted to cold fusion.) I think these are already listed as references in this article. There are also books, and the 2004 DOE report, among other secondary sources. (See [[Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 30#NPOV - Undue]].) <span style="color:Red; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]] ([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 00:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

:*see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_25#A_Chinese_View_on_Summary_of_Condensed_Matter_Nuclear_Science] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_24#Holy_Grail_Found.3F_--_2007_Review_article] (At the time I was not aware of the many other reviews). The ''Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook,'' published by the [[American Chemical Society]] and [[Oxford University Press]] (2008) also contains reviews, and I understand another volume is in preparation.

:*As to Kalman, this is a peer-reviewed primary source with regard to the theories proposed, and possibly peer-reviewed secondary source with regard to its review of previous reports, in my opinion. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 06:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)